alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of Charles I. Garside v. Most Preferred, Inc., et al.

Motion to dismiss appeal granted, with $10 costs, unless the appellants procure the record on appeal and appellants’ points to be served and filed on or before December 22, 1960, with notice of argument for the Non-Enumerated Calendar for the first day of the January 1961 Term of this court, said appeal to be argued or submitted when reached. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, Valente, McNally and Bastow, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
<CIK> 0000764403
<NAME> E'TOWN CORPORATION
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                      584,726
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                     46,061
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                          38,319
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                        39,138
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 708,244
<COMMON>                                       163,432
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                      (3,845)
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                             46,539
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                 206,126
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     12,000
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                           255,211
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                              34,000
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                       30
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                     0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                 200,877
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                  708,244
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                       33,609
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                             2,676
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                      21,557
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                      24,233
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                          9,376
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                                 307
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                   9,683
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         4,318
<NET-INCOME>                                     5,365
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                        203
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                    5,162
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                         4,238
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                        4,048
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                          17,022
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .63
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .62<F1>
<FN>
<F1>All amounts in thousands of dollars except per share amounts.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7371

MELVIN ARNOLD PROPPS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus THE WEST VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; WILLIAM C. DUNCIL, Deputy Commissioner; GEORGETRENT, Warden, Mount Olive Correctional Center; HAINES, Warden, Huttonsville CorrectionalCenter; KEITH WEESE, Acting Warden, Huttonsville Correctional Center; WILLIAM DAVIS, Commissioner, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Elkins. Robert Earl Maxwell, Senior District Judge. (CA-98-48-2) Submitted: November 5, 1998 Decided: November 23, 1998 Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.Melvin Arnold Propps, Appellant Pro Se. Leslie K. Kiser, WEST VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellees.2 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:Melvin Arnold Propps appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1998) complaint. Propps alleged that he was denied visitation with his wife; he sought injunctive relief and monetary damages. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm substantially on the reasoning of the district court. Propps v. West Virginia Dep’t of Corrections , No. CA-98-48-2 (N.D.W. Va. Sept. 1, 1998). We find Propps’ claim formoney damages to be without merit because there is no constitutional right to visitation. See Kentucky Dep’t of Corrections v. Thompson , 490 U.S. 454, 460-61 (1989). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented inthe materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
September 27/ 2016 Charles Bennett TDCJ-CID# 2015277 Stringfellow Unit 1200 P.M. 655 Rosharon, Texas 77583 Twelfth Court of Appeals 1517 West Front Street, Suite 354 

### Tyler, Texas 757202
RE: Case Number 12-15-00202-CR Trial Court Case Number 05CR-051 In The 349th Judicial District Court Houston County, Texas Dear Clerk, 

# FILEDINCOURTOFAPPEALS 12thCourtofAppealsDistrict SEP 2 9 2016 TYLBiTEXAS 

## PAMESTES, CLERK
I am corresponding in regards to the above-mentioned Case 

### Number in hopes that you have a copy of the Court Reporter's Record available. If so, could you please let me know how much 

### you will charge me for a copy of that record. 

### Your time and consideration in this matter is greatly appreciated/ Thank you. 

### Sincerely,

Char-"lac HannaH- ' ** Charles Bennett

CC/Filed: cb
1 

Filed 5/30/13 In re Alexander L. CA1/5 

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS 

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for 

publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication 

or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT 

DIVISION FIVE 

In re ALEXANDER L., a Person Coming 

Under the Juvenile Court Law. 

___________________________________ 

THE PEOPLE, 

 Plaintiff and Respondent, 

 v. 

ALEXANDER L., 

 Defendant and Appellant. 

 A135213 

 (Contra Costa County Super. Ct. 

 No. J0602298) 

 ORDER MODIFYING OPINION 

 [NO CHANGE IN JUDGMENT] 

BY THE COURT: 

 It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on May 1, 2013, be modified as follows: 

1. The first sentence of the second full paragraph on page 9 is revised to read as 

follows: “ Reversal of the order from which this appeal is taken will certainly 

grant appellant effectual relief, because it will reverse the commitment 

imposed by the April 9, 2012 dispositional order.” 

2. The final sentence of the carryover paragraph at the top of page 10, beginning 

with the word “Accordingly,” is revised by deleting all text after the word 

“order,” while retaining footnote 8. The revised sentence reads as follows: 

“Accordingly, we will reverse the April 9, 2012 dispositional order.8

” 
2

3. Footnote 9 on page 11 is revised by adding the following sentence to the end of 

the footnote: “Because the February 15, 2013 dispositional order is not before 

us, we express no view on it.” 

4. On page 12, the language following the heading “DISPOSITION” is deleted 

and replaced with the following: “The April 9, 2012 dispositional order is 

reversed and the matter is remanded so that the juvenile court may address the 

issues discussed in part IV of this opinion and for such further proceedings as 

are authorized by law.” 

 There is no change in judgment. 

 Nothing in this order should be construed as expressing any view on the various 

legal arguments the parties have raised in their findings related to the request for 

modification. 

Dated: _______________ __________________________________, P. J.
No. 778.

#### Alec Erickson *v.*John A. Roebling’s Sons Company of New York.

March 29, 1920.

*Mr. Silas B. Axtell*for petitioner.

*Mr. Bertrand L. Pettigrew*for respondent.

Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
**Exhibit (32)(a)**

 

Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,

As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of The Empire District Electric Company(the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2009 asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),William L. Gipson, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certifies,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1) TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2) Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.

 

 
| **By** | **/s/  William L. Gipson**             |   |
|--------|----------------------------------------|--------|
| Name:  | William  L. Gipson                     |   |
| Title: | President  and Chief Executive Officer |   |
|   |                                   |   |
| Date:  | August 6,  2009                   |   |
|        |                                        |        |  |

 

Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906 or otherdocument authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature thatappears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statementrequired by Section 906, has been provided to The Empire District ElectricCompany and will be retained by The Empire District Electric Company andfurnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
### §3409. Petition and review

#### (a) Petition; hearing; ruling

Any person subject to any order may file a written petition with the Secretary, stating that any such order or any provision of such order or any obligation imposed in connection therewith is not in accordance with law and praying for a modification thereof or for an exemption therefrom. The petitioner shall thereupon be given an opportunity for a hearing upon such petition, in accordance with regulations issued by the Secretary. After such hearing, the Secretary shall make a ruling upon the prayer of such petition which shall be final, if in accordance with law.

#### (b) Judicial review; jurisdiction; process; remand

The district courts of the United States in any district in which such person is an inhabitant, or has his principal place of business, are hereby vested with jurisdiction to review such ruling, provided a complaint for that purpose is filed within twenty days from the date of the entry of such ruling. Service of process in such proceedings may be had upon the Secretary by delivering a copy of the complaint to the Secretary. If the court determines that such ruling is not in accordance with law, it shall remand such proceedings to the Secretary with directions either (1) to make such ruling as the court shall determine to be in accordance with law, or (2) to take such further proceedings as, in its opinion, the law requires.

(Pub. L. 95–113, title XVII, §1710, Sept. 29, 1977, 91 Stat. 1037.)

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

#### Effective Date

Section effective Oct. 1, 1977, see section 1901 of Pub. L. 95–113, set out as an Effective Date of 1977 Amendment note under section 1307 of this title.
### §4104. Government facilities; use of

An agency program for the training of employees by, in, and through Government facilities under this chapter shall—

(1) provide for training, insofar as practicable, by, in, and through Government facilities under the jurisdiction or control of the agency; and

(2) provide for the making by the agency, to the extent necessary and appropriate, of agreements with other agencies in any branch of the Government, on a reimbursable basis when requested by the other agencies, for—

(A) use of Government facilities under the jurisdiction or control of the other agencies in any branch of the Government; and

(B) extension to employees of the agency of training programs of other agencies.

(Pub. L. 89–554, Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 434.)

| Derivation | U.S. Code | Revised Statutes and Statutes at Large |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | 5 U.S.C. 2307. | July 7, 1958, Pub. L. 85–507, §8, 72 Stat. 331. |

Statutes at Large

In paragraph (2), the words "other agencies in any branch of the Government" and "the other agencies" are coextensive with and substituted for "other departments, and with other agencies in any branch of the Government" and "such other departments and agencies". This is so because "other agencies in any branch of the Government" is broader than "agency" as defined for the purpose of this chapter in section 4101(1).

Standard changes are made to conform with the definitions applicable and the style of this title as outlined in the preface to the report.
Ryan K. Koffman

12289 Daisy Court

Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91739-1921

April 19, 2015

U.S. Department of Transportation

Docket Management System

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE

Washington DC 20590

Re: Application to Amend Section 333 Exemption No. 11314 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2014-0958

Dear Sir or Madam:

By letter dated April 9, 2015 from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) the request for exemption from 

Section 333 was granted. The letter is marked Section 333 Exemption No. 11314 Regulatory Docket No. FAA2014-0958.

The petitioner, Ryan K. Koffman, requests the granted exemption be amended to include the DJI S900 and the 

Bade 350QX.

The DJI S900 has a total weight of 8.2Kg or 18.1lbs. The dimensions are 900mm diagonally. The maximum 

speed is not listed in the aircrafts operating manual (AOM) but will not exceed 50mph. The S900 has six 

motors, Motor Model S900-021, powered by a 6-cell 10000mAh or 15000mAh Lithium Polymer battery. 

There are six propellers in use, Propeller Model DJI S900-25. The S900 will be controlled with the Spektrum 

DX8 remote controller with an operating frequency of 2.400GHz – 2.483GHz. The live video feed will have an 

operating frequency of 5.728GHz – 5.850GHz. 

The Blade 350QX has a total weight of 24oz or 680g. The dimensions are 18.30inch (465mm) in length and 

5.43inch (138mm) in height with a main rotor diameter of 22.80inch (580mm). The maximum speed is not 

listed in the AOM but will not exceed 50mph. The 350QX has four motors, Motor Model BLH7802, powered 

by a 3 cell 2200mAh or 3000mAh Lithium Polymer battery. There are four propellers, Propeller Model APC 

LP08038SF and LP08038SFP, in use. The 350QX will be controlled with the Spektrum DX8 remote controller 

with an operating frequency of 2.400GHZ – 2.4835GHz. The live video feed will have an operating frequency 

of 5.728GHz – 5.850GHz.

The Base Station that will be utilized is the Neewer 7inch LCD Diversity Receiver Monitor, Model RX-LCD5802. 

The operating frequency is between 5645MHz – 5945MHz. The Neewer monitor is powered by an integrated 

2 cell 2500mAh Lithium Polymer battery.

Thank you for your understanding. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions regarding this 

request or need additional information.
U.S. Department of Transportation 

April 19, 2015

Page 2

Sincerely,

Ryan K. Koffman
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2
                                                                    ------------

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter
ended May 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission by
Environmental Tectonics Corporation (the "Company") on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Duane D. Deaner, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 result of
                  operations of the Company.



                                            Duane D. Deaner
                                            ----------------------------
                                            Duane D. Deaner
                                            Chief Financial Officer

                                            July 14, 2003


         A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### § 274.10 Reservations.

The Secretary of Defense reserves the right, at any time, or from time to time, to amend, repeal, supplement, revise or withdraw all or any of the provisions of this memorandum.
# Sheet1

State Agency Program Migrant Student Education

Impact Aid Basic Support Payments

Impact Aid Payments for Children with Disabilities

Impact Aid Construction

Indian Student Education Grants to Local Educational Agencies

Special Education Preschool Grants

Grants for Infants and Families

Career and Technical Education State Grants

Federal Pell Grants

Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants

Federal Work Study

Assessing Achievement (State Assessments)

Small Rural School Achievement Program

Client Assistance State Grants

Protection and Advocacy of Individual Rights

Supported Employment State Grants

State Agency Program--Neglected and Delinquent Children and Youth Education

Mathematics and Science Partnerships

21st Century Community Learning Centers

Independent Living State Grants

Services for Older Blind Individuals

Protection and Advocacy for Assistive Technology

Assistive Technology State Grants

Adult Basic and Literacy Education State Grants

English Literacy and Civics Education State Grants

Grand Total

Federal Direct Student Loan Program

School Turnaround Grants (School Improvement State Grants)

College- and Career-Ready Students (Title I, Grants to LEAs)

State or Other Area

Arizona

Arkansas

California

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Compiled for posting on the WEB by the Budget Service on January 6, 2015.

College Access Challenge Grants

Rural and Low Income Schools Program

English Learner Education (English Language Acquisition)

Homeless Children and Youth Education

Centers for Independent Living

Improving Teacher Quality State Grants

Effective Teachers and Leaders

Special Education -Grants to States

Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants

State or Other Area

State or Other Area

State or Other Area

State or Other Area

State or Other Area

State or Other Area

State or Other Area

State or Other Area

State or Other Area

State or Other Area

State or Other Area

State or Other Area

State or Other Area

State or Other Area

State or Other Area

State or Other Area

State or Other Area

State or Other Area

State or Other Area

State or Other Area

State or Other Area

State or Other Area

State or Other Area

State or Other Area

State or Other Area

State or Other Area

State or Other Area

State or Other Area

State or Other Area

State or Other Area

State or Other Area

State or Other Area

State or Other Area

State or Other Area

State or Other Area

State or Other Area

State or Other Area

State or Other Area

Effective Teaching and Learning:  STEM
MCDP 6

Command and Control

Forward

Operation VERBAL IMAGE

Chapter 1. The Nature of Command and Control

How Important is Command and Control?
#### PIKE, Appellant, v. HOLBROOK, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

February 20, 1903.)

Action by Charlotte G. Pike against Louisa R. Holbrook, as administratrix. G. W. Miller, for appellant. T. H. Silkman, for respondent.

No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs.
#### Connecticut Savings and Loan Association *v.*Wilbert Mitchell et al.

*Mary V. McCarthy,*for the appellant (defendant et al.).

No appearance for the appellee (plaintiff).

Argued October 1

decided October 1, 1974

The plaintiff’s motion to dismiss the appeal from the Superior Court in Hartford County is dismissed.
Editorial Note on Part 842
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 842 appear at 81 FR 83688, Nov. 22, 2016.

§ 842.23 Who are not proper claimants. The following individuals are not proper claimants: ( a ) Subrogees and assignees of proper claimants, including insurance companies.
( b ) Conditional vendors and lienholders.
( c ) Non-Air Force personnel, including American Red Cross personnel, United Services Organization (USO) performers, employees of government contractors, and Civil Air Patrol (CAP) members.
( d ) AFROTC cadets who are not on active duty for summer training.
( e ) Active duty military personnel and civilian employees of a military service other than the Air Force.
( f ) DOD employees who are not assigned to the Air Force.
( g ) Army and Air Force Exchange Service (AAFES) employees and other employees whose salaries are paid from nonappropriated funds (see subpart O).
( h ) Military personnel of foreign governments.
[55 FR 2809, Jan. 29, 1990. Redesignated at 81 FR 83688, Nov. 22, 2016]
### §2231a. Reimbursement of employees for costs of State licenses and certification fees

On and after October 28, 1991, notwithstanding any other provision of law, any appropriations or funds available to the agencies of the Department of Agriculture may be used to reimburse employees for the cost of State licenses and certification fees pursuant to their Department of Agriculture position and that are necessary to comply with State laws, regulations, and requirements.

(Pub. L. 102–142, title VII, §738, Oct. 28, 1991, 105 Stat. 915.)
#### § 245.27 Data entry.

Aircraft will file IFR or VFR flight plans, assigned a discrete transponder code, and must be in direct radio communication with ATC. The appropriate EATPL number will be entered in the remarks section of the flight plan. The EATPL number will be passed with flight plan data from one ATC facility to the next, and to the appropriate air defense control facilities.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                Exhibit 23.1

                        Consent of Independent Auditors

We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Annual Report (Form 10-K)
of DSC Communications Corporation of our report dated January 23, 1997 included
in the 1996 Annual Report to Shareholders of DSC Communications Corporation.

Our audit also included the financial statement schedule of DSC Communications
Corporation listed in Item 14(a).  This schedule is the responsibility of the
Company's management.  Our responsibility is to express an opinion based on our
audits.  In our opinion, the financial statement schedule referred to above,
when considered in relation to the basic financial statements taken as a whole,
presents fairly in all material respects the information set forth therein.

We also consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 2-83398, 2-95833, 33-17459, 33-22745, 33-38544,
33-65212, 33-65214, 33-64784, 33-49718, 33-61423, and 33-61425) of our report
dated January 23, 1997 with respect to the financial statements and schedule of
DSC Communications Corporation incorporated by reference in this Annual Report
(Form 10-K).

                                                               Ernst & Young LLP

Dallas, Texas
March 26, 1997