alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 8 (Wednesday, January 13, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 2729]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-00497]



[[Page 2729]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration


Notice of Intent To Release Airport Property; Brooksville-Tampa 
Bay Regional Airport, Brooksville, FL

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Request for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA hereby provides notice of intent to release 
approximately 17.94 acres of airport property at the Brooksville-Tampa 
Bay Regional Airport, Brooksville, FL, from the terms, conditions, 
reservations, and restrictions as contained in federal grant 
assurances. The release of property will allow the Hernando County 
Board of Commissioners to dispose of the property for other than 
aeronautical purposes. The property is located north of the airfield on 
the south side of Spring Hill Drive, Brooksville, Florida. The parcel 
is currently designated as aeronautical land use. The property will be 
released of its federal obligations for the relocation and 
consolidation of the Hernando County government headquarter facilities. 
The fair market value of the parcel has been determined to be 
$1,794,000.

DATES: Comments are due on or before February 12, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Documents are available for review at Brooksville-Tampa Bay 
Regional Airport, 15800 Flight Path Drive, Brooksville, Florida 34604; 
and the FAA Airports District Office, 8427 SouthPark Circle, Suite 524, 
Orlando, FL 32819-9058. Written comments on the Sponsor's request must 
be delivered or mailed to: Jenny Iglesias-Hamann, Community Planner, 
Orlando Airports District Office, 8427 SouthPark Circle, Suite 524, 
Orlando, FL 32819-9058. Documents reflecting the Sponsor's request are 
available for inspection by appointment only at the Brooksville-Tampa 
Bay Regional Airport and by contacting the FAA at the address listed 
above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jenny Iglesias-Hamann, Community 
Planner, Orlando Airports District Office, 8427 SouthPark Circle, Suite 
524, Orlando, FL 32819-9058.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 125 of The Wendell H. Ford Aviation 
Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century (AIR-21) requires the 
FAA to provide an opportunity for public notice and comment prior to 
the ``waiver''
    or ``modification'' of a sponsor's Federal obligation to use 
certain airport land for non-aeronautical purposes.

    Issued in Orlando, Florida, on January 8, 2021.
Bartholomew Vernace,
Manager, Orlando Airports District Office, Southern Region.
[FR Doc. 2021-00497 Filed 1-12-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
#### Romona Chikara, an Infant, by Her Guardian ad Litem Dominick Chikara, Respondent, v. City of New York, Defendant, and Board of Education of the City of New York, Appellant.

Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals denied. Nolan, P. J., Beldoek, Ughetta, Kleinfeld and Christ, JJ., concur.
#### Chisholm-Ryder Company, Inc., Respondent, v. State of New York et al., Appellants.

Case held, decision reserved, and matter remitted to the Trial Judge for further proceedings in accordance with the memorandum. Upon the making of such findings the ease is directed to be restored to the calendar of this court. Memorandum: The award was made in one sum. It included taxes paid by the claimant during the period of the temporary easement. The State stipulated that claimant was entitled to reimbursement for these taxes as part of the award. The decision of the court makes it clear that the award also included an allowance for reasonable rental and a sum for the reduced value of the property by reason of the installations left thereon by the State. Separate findings should be made as to the amount awarded for each of these elements. (See *Wineburgh*v. *State of New York,*20 A D 2d 961.) (Appeal from judgment of Court of Claims for claimant on a claim for damages resulting from temporary appropriation of realty.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Henry, Noonan and Del Vecchio, JJ.
#### 1304.201-70 Accountable personal property.

Provide one copy of all contracts and purchase orders for accountable personal property to the appropriate Departmental property management office(s) for inclusion in the Department's personal property system in accordance with the DOC Personal Property Management Manual. Accountable personal property purchased with a Governmentwide commercial purchase card is also to be reported to the property management office.
Motion D ismissed ; Petition for Writ of Mandamus Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed September 1 2 , 2024.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 24

- 00642

- CV

IN RE TRAVIS A. BRYAN I AND AMBER N. BRYAN , Relator s

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

WRIT OF MANDAMUS Co unty Civil C ourt at Law No

. 3 Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1208789



### MEMORANDUM OPINION

On September 3, 2024 , relator s Travis A. Bryan I and Amber N. Bryan filed a petition for writ of m andamus in this c ourt. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221;
see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the petition, relator recites that the respondent is
the Honorable LaShawn A. Williams, presiding judge of the Co unty Civil C ourt at2 Law No

. 3 of Harris County , but the substance of the petition is directed at the county clerk of Harris County, the Honorable Teneshia Hu d s peth, to “dissolve the writ of possession that was issued on September 3, 2024, or immediately recall the

same

. ” On September 10, 2024, the court notified relators that unless relators demonstrate this court’s jurisdiction on or before September 17, 2024, relators’ petition for writ of mandamus may be dismissed for want of jurisdiction

. On September 11, 2024, relators filed a n amended petition asserting that the trial court abused its discretion by issuing the writ of possession. However,
relators acknowle dge that “[t]he Clerk of the Trial Court issued a second writ of possession for the Property . . . .” The mandamus record reflects that the writ of possession was signed by the county clerk on September 3, 2024

. This court’s power to issue writs is defined in Government Code section 22.221. Section 22.221 grants the court of appeals the authority to issue: (1) writs of mandamus and other writs necessary to enforce their jurisdiction; (2) writs of mandamus against a judge of a district or county court in the court of appeals district; and (3) writs of habeas corpus under specifically defined circumstances involving contempt orders in civil cases. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221. We are not authorized to issue writs of mandamus against clerks of court, and relators have not claimed or shown that the relief requested is necessary to enforce the jurisdiction of our court. See In re Bunton , No. 14

- 07

- 00651

- CV, 2007 WL3 2301413, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] Aug. 14, 2007, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (per curiam).
Accordingly, we d ismiss relators’ amended petition for writ of mandamus for lack of jurisdiction

. We further dismiss relators’ second emergency motion for temporary relief.

PER CURIAM

Panel c onsists of Justices Spain, Poissant, and Wilson.
-       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2023-08-30T20:56:22-0400
      - Government Publishing Office, Washington, DC 20401
      - Government Publishing Office
      - Government Publishing Office attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by Government Publishing Office
### §1161. Repealed. Pub. L. 103–416, title II, §219(ee)(1), Oct. 25, 1994, 108 Stat. 4319

Section, act June 27, 1952, ch. 477, title II, ch. 1, §210A, as added Nov. 6, 1986, Pub. L. 99–603, title III, §303(a), 100 Stat. 3422; amended Oct. 24, 1988, Pub. L. 100–525, §2(n)(1), 102 Stat. 2613; Nov. 29, 1990, Pub. L. 101–649, title VI, §603(a)(6), (b)(1), 104 Stat. 5083, 5085; Dec. 12, 1991, Pub. L. 102–232, title III, §307(l)(2), 105 Stat. 1756, related to determination of agricultural labor shortages and admission of additional special agricultural workers.

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

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Pub. L. 103–416, title II, §219(ee)(3), as added by Pub. L. 104–208, div. C, title VI, §671(b)(10), Sept. 30, 1996, 110 Stat. 3009–722, provided that: "The amendments made by this subsection [repealing this section] shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act [Oct. 25, 1994]."
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Russell De Loatch, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County, rendered June 14, 1962 after a jury trial, convicting him of burglary in the third degree, and imposing sentence. Judgment affirmed. The defendant did not testify. In its charge the court stated that defendant was not required to prove his innocence; that the burden of proving his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt rests on the People; that defendant is presumed to be innocent until the contrary is proved; and that defendant is not required either to take the witness stand himself or to place any other witness on the stand in his defense. There was no specific charge that defendant’s neglect or refusal to testify does not create any presumption against him (Code Grim. Pro., § 393). It is error for a trial court not to instruct on this subject when defendant requests it *(Bruno*v. *United States,*308 U. S. 287; *People*v. *Elliott,*10 A D 2d 735). Here, there was neither request that such a charge be given, nor exception taken to the failure so to charge. Hence, in the absence of such request or exception, it was not error for the trial court to omit the instruction that no presumption arises from the failure of defendant to take the witness stand in his own behalf *(Johns*v. *State,*14 Wis. 2d 119, and cases therein cited; *Pereira*v. *United States,*202 F. 2d 830, affd. 347 U. S. 1; *Bradford*v. *United States,*129 P. 2d 274, cert. den. 317 U. S. 683; *United States*v. *Schuermmin,*79 P. Supp. 247, affd. 174 P. 2d 397, cert. den. 338 U. S. 831). Beldock, P. J., Christ, Brennan, Hill and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
EXHIBITB

Case: 1:12-cv-00163 Document #: 1-2 Filed: 01/10/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:15
United States of America

State of Wisconsin

DEPARTME T OF FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS

Division of Corporate & Consumer Services

To All to Whom These Presents Shall Come, Greeting:

I, PAUL M. HOLZEM, Administrator of the Division of Corporate and Consumer Services, Department of

Financial Institutions, do hereby certify that

SEQUENCE INC.

is a domestic corporation or a domestic limited liability company organized under the laws of this state and that

its date of incorporation or organization is May 22, 2000.

I further certify that said corporation or limited liability company has, within its most recently completed report

year, filed an annual report required under ss. 180.1622, 180.1921, 181.1622 or [83.0[20 Wis. Stats., and that it

has not tiled articles of dissolution.

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto set

my hand and affixed the official seal of the

Department on January 6, 2012.

PAUL M. HOLZEM, Administrator

Division of Corporate and Consumer Services

Department of Financial T nstitutions

Effective July l, 1996, the Department of Financial Institutions assumed the functions previously performed by the

Corporations Division of the Secretary of State and is the successor custodian of corporate records formerly held

by the Secretary of State.

DFI/Corp/33

To validate the authenticity of this certificate

Visit this web address: http://www.wdfi.org/apps/ccs/verify/

Enter this code: l00685-337F9F7E

Case: 1:12-cv-00163 Document #: 1-2 Filed: 01/10/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:16
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

HUGO CESAR AVILA-HERNANDEZ,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 13-70079

Agency No. A087-595-478

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted November 18, 2014** 

Before: LEAVY, FISHER, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Hugo Cesar Avila-Hernandez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an

immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum and withholding

of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for

FILED

DEC 4 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d

1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the petition for review.

Avila-Hernandez contends his mother’s abusive ex-boyfriend will persecute

him if he returns to Mexico. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s

determination that Avila-Hernandez did not establish a well-founded fear of

persecution. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003) (possibility

of persecution was “too speculative”). We reject Avila-Hernandez’s contention

that the agency did not consider the entire record. See Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439

F.3d 592, 603 (9th Cir. 2006) (petitioner did not overcome presumption agency

reviewed record). In light of our conclusion, we do not reach Avila-Hernandez’s

contentions regarding the agency’s time-bar finding. Thus, his asylum claim fails.

Because Avila-Hernandez failed to meet the lower standard of proof for

asylum, his claim for withholding of removal necessarily fails. See Zehatye, 453

F.3d at 1190.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

2 13-70079
#### Electronic Realty Associates, Inc., et al., Respondents, v John Lennon, as Acting Superintendent of Insurance of the State of New York, Appellant

— In an action for a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief, the defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, dated May 1, 1978, as (1) in part, denied his motion to dismiss the complaint or, in the alternative, for summary judgment, and (2) in part, granted the plaintiffs’ cross motion for summary judgment by (a) declaring that (i) the plaintiffs’ buyer protection plan is not an insurance contract within the meaning of the Insurance Law, (ii) the offer, issuance, and sale of the buyer protection plan "does not constitute an insurance business” and (iii) the defendant has no authority to require plaintiff Electronic Realty Associates to qualify as an insurer or to procure a license, and (b) permanently enjoining the defendant from interfering in the plaintiffs’ business. Order modified, on the law, by deleting the third and fourth decretal paragraphs thereof and substituting therefor a provision denying summary judgment to the plaintiffs with respect to the granting of a permanent injunction and dismissing the complaint insofar as it seeks a permanent injunction. As so modified, order affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements. We find that the plaintiff Electronic Realty Associates was not "doing an insurance business” within the meaning of section 41 (subd 3, par [b]) of the Insurance Law. Thus, the plaintiffs are not subject to the requirements of the Insurance Law, and their request for declaratory relief was properly granted. However, the granting of a permanent injunction was unnecessary since the court’s declaration gives the plaintiffs all the protection they need. If, in the opinion of the defendant Superintendent of Insurance, the sale by the plaintiffs of the buyer protection plan should in the future reach the level of "doing an insurance business”, he should not be hampered by an outstanding injunction in seeking relief. Rabin, J. P., Shapiro, Cohalan and Martuscello, JJ., concur. [94 AD2d 249.]
#### John H. Tierney *v.*American Urban Corporation

*Alan Neigher,*for the appellee (plaintiff).

*Thomas P. Hachett,*for the appellant (defendant).

Argued October 1

decided October 1, 1974

The Superior Court is authorized to grant the defendant’s motion of July 29, 1974, for permission to file a corrected appeal and recognizance. The plaintiff’s motion to dismiss the appeal from the Superior Court in New Haven County is denied.
#### 1323.404 Agency affirmative procurement programs.
Case: 1:12-cv-00057 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/04/12 Page 1 of 14 PageID #:1
Case: 1:12-cv-00057 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/04/12 Page 2 of 14 PageID #:2
Case: 1:12-cv-00057 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/04/12 Page 3 of 14 PageID #:3
Case: 1:12-cv-00057 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/04/12 Page 4 of 14 PageID #:4
Case: 1:12-cv-00057 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/04/12 Page 5 of 14 PageID #:5
Case: 1:12-cv-00057 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/04/12 Page 6 of 14 PageID #:6
Case: 1:12-cv-00057 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/04/12 Page 7 of 14 PageID #:7
Case: 1:12-cv-00057 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/04/12 Page 8 of 14 PageID #:8
Case: 1:12-cv-00057 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/04/12 Page 9 of 14 PageID #:9
Case: 1:12-cv-00057 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/04/12 Page 10 of 14 PageID #:10
Case: 1:12-cv-00057 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/04/12 Page 11 of 14 PageID #:11
Case: 1:12-cv-00057 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/04/12 Page 12 of 14 PageID #:12
Case: 1:12-cv-00057 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/04/12 Page 13 of 14 PageID #:13
Case: 1:12-cv-00057 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/04/12 Page 14 of 14 PageID #:14
#### § 719.151 Furnishing of advice and counsel to accused placed in pretrial confinement.

The Department of the Navy Corrections Manual, SECNAVINST 1640.9, reiterates the requirement of Article 10, UCMJ, that, when a person is placed in pretrial confinement, immediate steps should be taken to inform the confinee of the specific wrong of which he is accused and try him or to dismiss the charges and release him. The Corrections Manual requires that this information normally will be provided within 48 hours along with advice as to the confinee's right to consult with lawyer counsel and his right to prepare for trial. Lawyer counsel may be either a civilian lawyer provided by the confinee at his own expense or a military lawyer provided by the Government. If a confinee requests to confer with a military lawyer, such lawyer should normally be made available for consultation within 48 hours after the request is made.

[39 FR 18437, May 28, 1974]
INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S CONSENT


We consent to the  incorporation by reference in Registration  Statement on Form
S-8 (No.  333-83504) of Composite  Technology  Corporation and subsidiary of our
report, dated January 16, 2004 (which includes an emphasis paragraph relating to
an  uncertainty  as to the  Company's  ability to continue as a going  concern),
appearing  in  this  Annual  Report  on  Form  10-KSB  of  Composite  Technology
Corporation and subsidiary for the year ended September 30, 2003.


SINGER LEWAK GREENBAUM & GOLDSTEIN LLP

Los Angeles, California
February 2, 2004
EX-10.1



 








Exhibit 10.1




Independent Consultant Agreement





     This Agreement made as of this 3rd day of April 2006, between Dana R. Snyder,
(Consultant), and Associated Materials Incorporated, (“AMI”). AMI hereby retains Consultant on the
following terms and conditions:


1. Consultant, as an independent contractor, shall provide to AMI advice and counsel on commercial
and market strategies, product positioning as well as other similar and appurtenant services as may
be requested by AMI.



2. Consultant will be paid a fee of fifty thousand dollars ($50,000.00) monthly during the term of
this Agreement. Such payments shall be made to the firm of DRS Consulting, Inc. In addition,
Consultant will be reimbursed for reasonable travel expenses.



3. Consultant agrees to be available as needed by AMI during the term of this Agreement.



4. Consultant agrees that as an independent contractor he shall not be entitled to any benefits
applicable to AMI employees, and shall have sole responsibility for the payment of all applicable
governmental taxes including Federal, State and local income taxes and for all employment and
disability insurance, Social Security and other similar taxes.



5. The information and knowledge acquired by Consultant in connection with or as a result of his
services hereunder, shall be regarded as confidential and Consultant shall not use, nor disclose
any such information, knowledge or trade secrets to any person either during or after the period of
this agreement, except as otherwise authorized by us. All records and copies of records relating
to AMI’s operations and business made or received by Consultant during the period of this agreement
are and shall be AMI’s property exclusively, and Consultant shall keep the same at all times in his
custody and subject to his control, and shall surrender the same at the termination of this
agreement if not before.



6. This agreement shall be effective as of April 3, 2006 and shall continue for sixty (60) days.
This agreement can be extended by mutual agreement between Consultant and AMI for additional thirty
(30) day periods.



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this agreement as of the day and year first
above written.




	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	Associated Materials Incorporated.
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	BY:

	 	     /s/ Dana R. Snyder
	 	 	 	BY:
	 	     /s/ D. Keith LaVanway
	 

	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	     Dana R. Snyder	 	 	 	D. Keith LaVanway
	 	 	 	 	 	 	Vice President — Chief Financial Officer,
	Date:	 	April 3, 2006	 	 	 	Treasurer and Secretary
#### 1426.7102 Minority Business Development Agency (MBDA-91) Plan and Reports.
EXHIBIT 32.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                FEDERAL MORTGAGE CORPORATION OF PUERTO RICO, INC.
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

     In connection with the Quarterly Report of Federal Mortgage Corporation of
Puerto Rico, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September
30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael Schumacher, Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

     (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d), as applicable, 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/ Michael Schumacher
Michael Schumacher
Treasurer, Secretary and Chief Financial Officer
November 9, 2005