alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Opinion issued December 16, 2014 .

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01
- 14
- 00841
- CV

——————————— INFINITY CAPITAL II, LLC, INFINITY CAPITA L, LLC, LAURIE A. MCRAY, AND MCRAY MON EY MANAGEMENT, LLC , Appellant s V. STRASBURGER & PRICE, LLP , Appellee

On Appeal from the 281st District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Ca se No. 2014
- 32348

MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant s , Infinity Capital II, LLC, Infinity Capital, LLC, Laurie A. McRay, and McRay Money Management, LLC , ha ve filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. No other party has filed a notice of appeal, and no opinion has issued. See2

T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 42.1(a)(1), (c). Further, although appellants f ailed to include a certificate of conference in their motion, more than 10 days have passed and no party has responded to the motion. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 10.1(a)(5), 10.3(a). Accordingly, we grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 42. 1(a)(1), 43.2(f). We dismiss all other pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Sharp, and Massengale.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             NOV-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-1998
<CASH>                                           8,324
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      821
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                         82
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                10,064
<PP&E>                                          54,748
<DEPRECIATION>                                  15,544
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  49,385
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           10,002
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                         1,525
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                      29,308
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    49,385
<SALES>                                         21,875
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                27,554
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   23,994
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,661
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  13
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,434
<INCOME-TAX>                                       377
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,057
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  6,534
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     7,591
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    16.20
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    16.20
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF FAIR GROUNDS CORPORATION FOR THE 6 MONTHS ENDED APRIL
30, 1998 AND IS QUALIFILIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             NOV-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-1998
<CASH>                                           2,681
<SECURITIES>                                       205
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,754
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                        163
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 6,161
<PP&E>                                          50,931
<DEPRECIATION>                                  15,020
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  45,482
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            7,062
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,525
<OTHER-SE>                                      27,804
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    45,482
<SALES>                                         14,832
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                21,442
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   17,615
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,497
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  17
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,964
<INCOME-TAX>                                       727
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,237
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  4,851
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     6,088
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    12.96
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    12.96
        


                                      

</TABLE>
As Amended: December 6 , 2012

Date of Hearing: November 15, 2012 E

- 1 State of California

AIR RESOURCES BOARD

CALIFORNIA EVAPORATIVE EMISSION STANDARDS AND TEST PROCEDURES

FOR 2001 AND SUBSEQUENT MODEL MOTOR VEHICLES

Adopted: August 5, 1999

Amended: June 22, 2006

Amended: October 17, 2007

Amended: December 2, 2009

Amended: September 27, 2010

Amended: March 22, 2012

Amended: December 6, 2012

Note: Proposed amendments to this document are shown in underline to indicate

additions and in strikeout to indicate deletions compared to the test

procedures as last amended March 22, 2012

. Existing intervening text that

is not amended is indicated by a row of asterisks ( * * * * ).As Amended: December 6 , 2012 2

Date of Hearing: November 15, 2012 * * * *

CALIFORNIA EVAPORATIVE EMISSION STANDARDS AND TEST PROCEDURES

FOR 2001 AND SUBSEQUENT MODEL MOTOR VEHICLES

The provisions of Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 86, Subparts A

and B (as adopted or amended as of July 1, 1989); Subpart S (as adopted or amended on

May 4, 1999); and, such sections of these Subparts as last amended on such other date

set forth next to the 40 CFR Part 86 section title listed below, insofar as those s ubparts

pertain to evaporative emission standards and test procedures, are hereby adopted as

the “California Evaporative Emission Standards and Test Procedures for 2001 and

Subsequent Model Years,” with the following exceptions and additions:

PART I. GENERAL CERT IFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR EVAPORATIVE

EMISSIONS

* * * *

E. Emission Standards

1. Evaporative Emission Standards for 2001 and Subsequent M odel

Year Vehicles Other Than Motorcycles.

* * * *

(e) For 2015 and subsequent model motor vehicles, the following

evaporative emission requirements apply :

* * * *

(iii) Carry

- Over of 2014 Model

- Year Evaporative Families Certified

to the Zero

- Fuel Evaporative Emission Standards. A manufacturer may

carry over 2014 model motor vehicles certified to the zero

- fuel (0.0 grams

per test) eva porative emission standards set forth in section I.E.1.(c)

through the 2018 model year and be considered compliant with the

requirements of section I.E.1.(e). For all motor vehicles that are certified via

this carry

- over provision, the emission standards set forth in section

I.E.1.(c) shall apply when determining in

- use compliance throughout the

vehicle’s useful life. If the manufacturer chooses to participate in the

fleet

- average option for the highest whole vehicle diurnal plus hot soak

emission standard, the following family emission limits are assigned to

these evaporative families for the calculation of the manufacturer’s

fleet

- average hydrocarbon emission value.As Amended: December 6 , 2012 3

Date of Hearing: November 15, 2012 Vehicle Type Highest Whole Vehicle

Diurnal + Hot Soak

(grams per test)

Passenger Cars 0.300

Light

- Duty Trucks

6,000 lbs. GVWR and under,

and 0

- 3,750 lbs. LVW 0.300

Light

- Duty Trucks

6,000 lbs. GVWR and under,

and 3,751

– 5,750 lbs. LVW 0.400

Light

- Duty Trucks

6,001

- 8,500 lbs. GVWR 0.500

* * * *
#### (A) Jesse E. Holland, Respondent, v. Frank Gallagher., Appellant. (B) In the Matter of the Arbitration between Florida Molasses Company, Respondent, and First National Oil Corporation, Appellant.

[In each action] Motion by appellant for reargument and for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals referred to the court that rendered the decision. Beldock, Acting P. J., Ughetta, Kleinfeld, Christ and Pette, JJ., concur. Motion for reargument denied, with $10 costs. Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals denied. Nolan, P. J., Ughetta, Kleinfeld, Christ and Brennan, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.2



Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of

the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



I, Raymond F. Lancy, Chief Financial Officer of Bridgford Foods Corporation (the Company), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:



|(1) | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period April 16, 2004 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 780(d)); and
|--- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(2) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Dated: May 28, 2004



/s/    Raymond F. LancyRaymond F. Lancy, Chief Financial Officer (Principal
Financial Officer)
#### 2129.401 Domestic contracts.
TOM PERRIELLO 

5TH DISTRICT, ViRtsmtA 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION 

AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS ^tmBs of IkpnBsntai^vsB 

SfafilfUtgton, M 20515-4605 

1620 LoHCWORTH Houst Omci Buuotc 

WASKlNaTON,OC20S16 

Q02)22&-47I1 

1202] 22S-5B81 FAX 

WWW.HfUDIUOXOUSE.aOV 

August 13, 2010 

Honorable Ray LaHood 

Secretary of Transportation 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Ave, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

RE: U.S. DOT Small Community Air Service Development Program 

Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport (CHO) 

Charlottesville, VA 

C D 

> 

• P 

N 3 

rn^i ^ sss 

Soo 

•CO 

Dear Secretary LaHood: 

I respectfully offer my support on behalf of the Chariottesville-Albemarle Airport 

Authority's (CHO) application to the U.S. Department of Transportation's Sniall 

Conmiunity Air Service Development Program (SCASDP). The Airport's grant 

application highlights the need to improve the quality of service and airfares at CHO and 

requests financial assistance to pursue new nonstop service to Chicago-O'Hare 

International Airport (ORD). The availability of quality, commereial air service has a 

profound impact on the region's economy through improved access for visitors and 

supports the needs of area businesses, organizations and educational institutions. 

I want to assure you that the "public - private" partnership that has been developed 

between CHO and the Charlottesville Regional Chamber of Commerce for the purpose of 

supporting new nonstop air service to ORD will have our full support. I have flill 

confidence that the program will also have the full support of the Greater Charlottesville 

community. 

If you have questions, please do not hesitate to contact me or my ofiQce. 

Sincerely^ 

Tom Perriello 

Member of Congress 

308 CWAgMtAe STRHT, Sure 102 

DANVIIU.VA24E41 

14341791-2SS6 

(434) 791-2598 FAX 

313 2ia> STTSIT SE, SUTTE 112 

CHUUITTCEVIIU, VA 22802 

(4341293-8831 

(434) 293-9632 FAX 

FRNTID OH RECrraCO PAKA 

SIS SOUTH MAn STREIT 

FAliyMlie. VA 23901 

(434) 392-1997 

(434) 392.3264 FAX 

10 EAST CKJKM STUtrr, Sunt K 

MARISSVUE. VA 24112 

I27S 656-2291 

(276) 656-2293 FAX
4/27/09

U.S. Department of Education

Negotiated Rulemaking

1990 K Street, NW, 8th Floor Conference Center

Washington, D.C.

Team III – Accreditation

Meeting Three

May 18 & 19, 2009, 9:00 a.m. – 5:00 p.m.

May 20, 2009, 9:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m.

Agenda*

Welcome 

Review, Revise, and Approve Meeting Two Summary 

Review Draft Regulatory Text for Outstanding Issues:

Issue #5: Operating Procedures – Teach-out Plan Approval

Issue #7 & 8: Demonstration of Compliance Within 12 Months and Recognition 

When Not Fully Compliant / Recognition Procedures – Subparts C & D

§602.36(b) Senior Department official’s decision

§602.37(f) Appealing the senior Department official’s decision to the 

Secretary

Issue #10: Distance Education and Correspondence Education

§602.17 Application of standards in reaching an accrediting decision

Issue #11&12: Monitoring of Institutions and Programs Throughout Period;

Operating Procedures – Growth Monitoring

Issue #13: Substantive Change

Issue #15: Due Process and Appeals

Review Revised Regulatory Text for All Tentative Agreements Reached (Contextual 

and Amendatory)

Issue #1: Definitions of Distance Education and Correspondence Education

Issue #2: Accreditation Team Members

Issue #3: Student Achievement Standard

Issue #4: Operating Procedures – Transfer of Credit

Issue #6: Definition of Recognition

 

*

 Time will be made available for public comment during the meeting.
4/27/09

Issue #7 & 8: Demonstration of Compliance Within 12 Months and Recognition 

When Not Fully Compliant / Recognition Procedures – Subparts C & D

§602.3 What definitions apply to this part?

Compliance report

Designate federal official

§602.30 Activities covered by recognition procedures

§602.31 Agency submissions to the Department

§602.32 Procedures for Department review of applications for recognition 

or for change in scope, compliance reports, and increases in enrollment

§602.33 Procedures for review of agencies during the period of recognition

§602.34 Advisory Committee meetings

§602.35 Responding to the Advisory Committee’s recommendation

§602.36(a), (c)-(j) Senior Department official’s decision

§602.37(a)-(e), (g), (h) Appealing the senior Department official’s decision 

to the Secretary

§602.38 Contesting the Secretary’s final decision to deny, limit, suspend, 

or terminate an agency’s recognition

Issue #9: Direct Assessment Program 

Issue #10: Distance Education and Correspondence Education

§602.3 What definitions apply to this part?

Scope of recognition or scope

§602.16 Accreditation and preaccreditation standards

§602.18 Ensuring consistency in decision-making

§602.27 Other information an agency must provide to the Department

Issue #14: Record Keeping and Confidentiality

Issue #16: Operating Procedures – Summary of Agency Actions

Other Issues as Tentative Agreements are reached.

Next Steps

Revised Regulatory Text

Meeting Summary

Preamble

Other
| 7 HANOVER SQUARE NEW YORK, NY 10004 | TEL: (212) 613 5000 | FAX: (212) 750 0820 | WWW.NYLAG.ORG |

To: Distance Learning and Educational Innovation Subcommittee

From: Jessica Ranucci, New York Legal Assistance Group, Representing Legal Assistance 

Organizations that Represent Students

Date: February 5, 2019

Re: Statement to Main Committee on Scope of Rulemaking

Background:

At the first meeting, many members of the subcommittee repeatedly expressed concern that in

this rulemaking the Department is proposing to lower barriers to entry for new accreditors while 

simultaneously proposing to defer certain oversight responsibilities to accreditors and, in some 

instances, removing federal oversight entirely. I believe this concern has permeated the work of 

our subcommittee and I want to make sure that we clearly express it to the main committee.

Proposal:

I propose that we agree on a written statement to the main committee that encapsulates this 

concern. I have drafted proposed language here as a starting point for discussion:

In this rulemaking the Department is proposing to lower long-standing entry 

requirements for new accreditors while simultaneously proposing to defer certain 

oversight responsibilities to accreditors. In some instances, the Department is 

proposing to remove federal oversight entirely. We are concerned that making 

these changes simultaneously could leave open the door to unscrupulous actors 

and harm students and taxpayers. We do not believe that these changes are 

necessary to allow innovation in higher education. We urge the main committee 

to consider the proposed changes to accreditation in tandem with the proposed 

changes to other areas of the regulations that rely on accreditors’ oversight, in 

order to ensure the protection of students and taxpayers.
#### Marilyn Coleman, as Administratrix, v. Jess Gelb

Motion for an extension of time granted insofar as to extend the time for defendant-appellant to serve his answer to 10 days after service upon his attorney of a copy of the order of this court determining said appeal, with notice of entry thereof, on condition that the appellant procures the record on appeal and appellant’s points to be served and filed on or before December 22, 1960, with notice of argument for January 3, 1961, said appeal to be argued or submitted when reached. Concur — Rabin, J. P., Valente, McNally, Stevens and Eager, JJ.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

JULIA BONNER, as Administrator of the 

Estate of SYLVESTER BONNER, Jr., 

Deceased,

 

Plaintiff,

 v.

D A NIEL O’TOOLE, UNKNOWN 

OFFICERS OF THE CHICAGO POLICE

DEPARTMENT, and CITY OF CHICAGO,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

) Case No. 12 C 0981

)

) Judge Manish S. Shah

) 

) 

)

)

)

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON PLAINTIFF’S BILL OF COSTS

Plaintiff, Julia Bonner, as Administrator of the Estate of Sylvester Bonner, Jr.,

Deceased, by and through her attorneys, Irene K. Dymkar, Torreya L. Hamilton, and

Shamoyita M. DasGupta, hereby moves this Court to enter judgment on plaintiff’s Bill of

Costs. In support thereof, she states:

1. This action was commenced by the filing of a complaint alleging a cause of

action under the Civil Rights Act of 1871 (42 U.S.C. §1983), to redress deprivations of the

civil rights of plaintiff through acts and/or omissions of defendant committed under color of

law.

2. This case proceeded to trial on September 18, 2018.

3. Judgment was entered in plaintiff’s favor on September 21, 2018. As the

prevailing party, plaintiff is entitled to costs.

4. Plaintiff filed her Bill of Costs for a total amount of $17,460.88 on October

19, 2018. See Doc. 496.

Case: 1:12-cv-00981 Document #: 497 Filed: 10/19/18 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:5609
5. Plaintiff hereby requests that this Court enter judgment on plaintiff’s Bill of

Costs. 

WHEREFORE, plaintiff, JULIA BONNER, as Administrator of the Estate of

Sylvester Bonner, Jr., Deceased, respectfully requests that this Court enter judgment on

plaintiff’s Bill of Costs in the amount of $17,460.88.

Dated: October 19, 2018 /s/ Shamoyita M. DasGupta 

Shamoyita M. DasGupta

Plaintiff’s Attorneys:

Irene K. Dymkar

Shamoyita M. DasGupta

Law Offices of Irene K. Dymkar

53 West Jackson, Suite 733

Chicago, IL 60604-3462

(312) 345-0123

2

Case: 1:12-cv-00981 Document #: 497 Filed: 10/19/18 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:5610
§ 634.51 Procedures for impoundment. ( a ) *Unattended POVs.* ( 1 ) DD Form 2504 (Abandoned Vehicle Notice) will be conspicuously placed on POVs considered unattended. This action will be documented by an entry in the installation law enforcement desk journal or blotter.
( 2 ) The owner will be allowed 3 days from the date the POV is tagged to remove the vehicle before impoundment action is initiated. If the vehicle has not been removed after 3 days, it will be removed by the installation towing service or the contracted wrecker service. If a contracted wrecker service is used, a DD Form 2505 (Abandoned Vehicle Removal Authorization) will be completed and issued to the contractor by the installation law enforcement office.
( 3 ) After the vehicle has been removed, the installation law enforcement officer or the contractor will complete DD Form 2506 (Vehicle Impoundment Report) as a record of the actions taken. ( i ) An inventory listing personal property will be done to protect the owner, law enforcement personnel, the contractor, and the commander.
( ii ) The contents of a closed container such as a suitcase inside the vehicle need not be inventoried. Such articles should be opened only if necessary to identify the owner of the vehicle or if the container might contain explosives or otherwise present a danger to the public. Merely listing the container and sealing it with security tape will suffice.
( iii ) Personal property must be placed in a secure area for safekeeping.
( 4 ) DD Form 2507 (Notice of Vehicle Impoundment) will be forwarded by certified mail to the address of the last known owner of the vehicle to advise the owner of the impoundment action, and request information concerning the owner's intentions pertaining to the disposition of the vehicle.
( b ) *Stolen POVs or vehicles involved in criminal activity.* ( 1 ) When the POV is to be held for evidentiary purposes, the vehicle should remain in the custody of the applicable Service or DLA until law enforcement purposes are served.
( 2 ) Recovered stolen POVs will be released to the registered owner, unless held for evidentiary purposes, or to the law enforcement agency reporting the vehicle stolen, as appropriate.
( 3 ) A POV held on request of other authorities will be retained in the custody of the applicable Service or DLA until the vehicle can be released to such authorities.
October 3, 2016

Mr. Randy Cox

KCSI Aerial Patrol

410 East Planz

Bakersfield, CA 93307

Re: FAA–2015–1827

Dear Mr. Cox:

This letter is to provide notification that we have reviewed your petition for exemption, and 

have determined that we will continue to process your petition. 

As referenced in the September 7, 2016, letter posted to your docket at www.regulations.gov, 

we are reviewing pending Section 333 petitions to determine if the recently-issued regulation, 

Operation and Certification of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems, Title 14, Code of Federal 

Regulations, Part 107 (www.faa.gov/uas) will satisfy your request. We have determined that 

your request requires further regulatory relief (Tier 3), and we will continue working on your 

petition for exemption. 

We have found that your petition, if granted, would set a precedent. Therefore, we will 

publish a summary of your petition in the Federal Register for public comments, if we have 

not done so already.

We will advise you of the agency’s final decision on your petition as soon as possible. If you 

have any questions regarding your petition, please contact me at 333exemptions@faa.gov. 

Sincerely,

/s/

Dan Ngo

Program Analyst