alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
In The Matter Of: 

### SERVED: JANUARY 28, 2015 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS WASillNGTON, DC

DocketNo. FAA-2013-0848 ENDLESS MOUNTAINS AIR, INC. ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 2012EA50008 Respondent
NOTICE OF HEARING LOCATION On May 29, 2014, an Order Setting Litigation Dates and Procedures was filed, which noted thatthe specific location ofthe Hearing would beprovided by separate Notice to the parties.PLEASE TAKE NOTICE thatthe Hearing inthis case, setto begin onMarch 10, 2015, at 9:00a.m., will be held at the following location: EdwardN. Cahn U.S. Courthouse 3rdFloor, Courtroom 3C 504 Hamilton Street Allentown, P A 18101 The Hearing begins at 9:00a.m. Eastern Daylight Time. Please allow timeto pass through security. Weapons ofany kind, as well as cameras and audio/video equipment (other than cellular telephones) are prohibited.

Attachment: Service ListSERVICE LIST- BY U.S. MAIL

Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 ORIGINAL & ONE COPY

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1000 1

Mr. Zachary M. Berman 

### Complainant's Counsel ONE COPY

Office ofRegional Counsel, Eastern Region Federal Aviation Administration 1 Aviation Plaza Jamaica, NY 11434 TEL: 718-553-3258 FAX: 718-995-5699 Mr. William J. Dobitsch, Jr. Endless Mountains Air, Inc. 

### Respondent · Seamans Airport 727 Windsock Lane Factoryville, P A 18419 TEL: 570-945-5125 FAX: 570-945-5953 Judge J.E. Sullivan 

### US. AdministrativeLawJudge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. DepartmentofTransportation 1200New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) Washington, DC 20590 TEL: 202-366-6941 FAX: 202-366-7536 FDMS No. FAA-2013-0848 (Civil Penalty Action)

1 Service was byU.S. Mail. For service in person orby expedited courier, use tbe following address: Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1000, Washington, DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk. AGC-430.
<PAGE>

                                                     Exhibit (23)-2
                                                     Commonwealth Edison Company
                                                     Form 10-Q/A File No. 1-1839



                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
                   -----------------------------------------


     As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation
by reference of our report in this Form 10-Q/A for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 1999, into Commonwealth Edison Company's (the Company) previously
filed prospectuses as follows:  (1) prospectus dated August 21, 1986,
constituting part of Form S-3 Registration Statement File No. 33-6879, as
amended (relating to the Company's Debt Securities and Common Stock); (2)
prospectus dated January 7, 1994, constituting part of Form S-3 Registration
Statement File No. 33-51379 (relating to the Company's Debt Securities and
Cumulative Preference Stock); (3) prospectus dated September 19, 1995,
constituting part of Amendment No. 1 to Form S-3 Registration Statement File No.
33-61343, as amended (relating to Company-Obligated Mandatorily Redeemable
Preferred Securities of ComEd Financing I); (4) prospectus dated June 13, 1997
constituting part of Form S-4 Registration Statement File No. 333-28369
(relating to Company-Obligated  Mandatorily Redeemable Preferred Securities of
ComEd Financing II); and (5) Form S-8 Registration Statement File No. 333-33847
(relating to the Commonwealth Edison Company Excess Benefit Savings Plan).



                                    Arthur Andersen LLP




Chicago, Illinois
May 12, 2000
Featured Grant OpportunitySchool Emergency Response to Violence (Project SERV) (Funding Opportunity) 

Featured Grant OpportunityShare with Youth: NOAA Student Opportunities Database

Featured Grant OpportunityShort Courses in Social Determinants of Health for Research Education in Nursing Research (Funding...

Featured Grant OpportunityComprehensive Partnerships to Advance Cancer Health Equity (CPACHE) Program (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityRisk and Protective Factors of Family Health and Family Level Interventions (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityPersonnel Development to Improve Services and Results for Children with Disabilities--Doctoral...

Featured Grant OpportunityStanding Announcement for Tribal Title IV-E Plan Development Grants (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityProviding Research Education Experiences to Enhance Inclusivity for a Diverse Substance Use and...

Featured Grant OpportunityFY 2024 Research on School-Based Hate Crimes (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityChallenge America (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityResearch and Evaluation on Firearm Violence and Mass Shootings (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityNational Juvenile Court Data Archive (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityGraduate Research Fellowship (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityCommunity Programs for Outreach and Intervention with Youth and Young Adults at Clinical High Risk...

Featured Grant OpportunityPrint and Disseminate Child Victims and Witnesses Support Materials (Funding Opportunity)

## Breadcrumb

            -  Announcements 
            -           Resource: Epilepsy      

# Resource: Epilepsy

This webpage shares tips for how schools can support students with epilepsy. The webpage provides information about seizure action plans and educators’ roles in helping students manage their epilepsy. Additional resources for professionals, students, and families are provided. **Learn more.**
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Aziz Harden, Appellant.

[776 NYS2d 54]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Arlene Silver-man, J.), rendered January 28, 2003, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third and fifth degrees, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to an aggregate term of *41⁄2*to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. Issues of credibility were properly considered by the jury and there is no basis for disturbing its determinations *(see People v Gaimari,*176 NY 84, 94 [1903]).

The court’s *Sandoval*ruling balanced the appropriate factors and was a proper exercise of discretion *(see People v Hayes,*97 NY2d 203 [2002]; *People v Walker,*83 NY2d 455, 458-459 [1994]; *People v Pavao,*59 NY2d 282, 292 [1983]). Defendant’s prior drug convictions were highly relevant to his credibility, and their probative value outweighed their prejudicial effect.

Defendant’s contentions with respect to the prosecutor’s summation are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would find no basis for reversal *(see People v Overlee,*236 AD2d 133 [1997], *lv denied*91 NY2d 976 [1998]; *People v D’Alessandro,*184 AD2d 114, 118-119 [1992], *lv denied*81 NY2d 884 [1993]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Saxe, Lerner, Marlow and Gonzalez, JJ.
Featured Grant OpportunitySchool Emergency Response to Violence (Project SERV) (Funding Opportunity) 

Featured Grant OpportunityShare with Youth: NOAA Student Opportunities Database

Featured Grant OpportunityShort Courses in Social Determinants of Health for Research Education in Nursing Research (Funding...

Featured Grant OpportunityComprehensive Partnerships to Advance Cancer Health Equity (CPACHE) Program (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityRisk and Protective Factors of Family Health and Family Level Interventions (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityPersonnel Development to Improve Services and Results for Children with Disabilities--Doctoral...

Featured Grant OpportunityStanding Announcement for Tribal Title IV-E Plan Development Grants (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityProviding Research Education Experiences to Enhance Inclusivity for a Diverse Substance Use and...

Featured Grant OpportunityFY 2024 Research on School-Based Hate Crimes (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityChallenge America (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityResearch and Evaluation on Firearm Violence and Mass Shootings (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityNational Juvenile Court Data Archive (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityGraduate Research Fellowship (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityCommunity Programs for Outreach and Intervention with Youth and Young Adults at Clinical High Risk...

Featured Grant OpportunityPrint and Disseminate Child Victims and Witnesses Support Materials (Funding Opportunity)

## Breadcrumb

            -  Announcements 
            -           50th Anniversary of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA)      

# 50th Anniversary of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA)

OJJDP celebrates the 50th anniversary of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA). The JJDPA authorizes OJJDP to provide funds to states that follow a series of federal protections for youth in the justice system. This webpage describes the "core protections" outlined in the Act and shares an overview of the JJDPA timeline. **Learn more.**
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF 

PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

DAVID MCGOWAN,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 215 MM 2017

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 20th day of February, 2018, the Application for Leave to File 

Original Process is GRANTED, and the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED.
**Exhibit 32-7** **Certificate    Pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of    Title 18 United States Code**     The undersigned officer hereby certifies, as to the quarterly    report on    Form 10-Q    of Exelon Generation Company, LLC for the quarterly period ended    June 30, 2006, that (i) the report fully complies with    the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the    Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and (ii) the information    contained in the report fairly presents, in all material    respects, the financial condition and results of operations of    Exelon Generation Company, LLC. /s/  John    L. Skolds    John L. Skolds    President     Date: July 31, 2006
#### PEOPLE ex rel. MORRIS, Appellant, BAKER et al., Respondents.

(Supreme Courl Appellate Division, First Department.

Marc 23, 1906.)

Proceeding by the people of th state of New York, on the relation of Williar J. Morris, against William F. Baker and others R.

Weed, for appellant.

W. B. Crowell, fo respondents.

No opinion. Order affirmed, wit $10 costs and disbursements. Order filed.
§ 1.807 Direct testimony submitted as written documents. Any person desiring to participate as a witness at the hearing shall submit direct testimony as written documents as prescribed by the following: ( a ) Direct testimony by a witness, including accompanying exhibits, must be submitted as specified in the notice of the hearing pursuant to § 1.803. Exhibits constituting part of such direct testimony, referred to in the direct testimony and made a part thereof must be attached to the direct testimony. Direct testimony submitted with exhibits must state the issue(s) to which the exhibit relates; if no such statement is made, the Judge, at the hearing, shall determine the relevance of the exhibit to the issues published in the Federal Register.
( b ) The direct testimony submitted shall contain: ( 1 ) A concise statement of the witness' interest in the proceeding and his or her position regarding the issues presented. If the direct testimony is presented by a witness who is not a party, the witness shall state the witness' relationship to the party on behalf of whom the testimony is proffered; and
( 2 ) Facts that are relevant and material.
( c ) Copies of all direct testimony, including accompanying exhibits, must be submitted as prescribed by the notice of hearing.
( d ) Upon receipt, direct testimony shall be assigned a number and stamped with that number and the docket number.
#### § 1001.18 Cooperative association.

See § 1000.18.
# United States Court of Appeals **for the Fifth Circuit**

____________ No. 22-40699 Summary Calendar

____________ Savvy Ventures, L.L.C., c/o Gregory Real Estate, Inc., doing business as Gregory Property Management , Plaintiff—Appellee ,

versus Robert Robinson, and All Occupants, Defendant—Appellant

.

______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 6:22-CV-242

______________________________ Before Clement, Elrod, and Ho, Circuit Judges

. Per Curiam: * Robert Robinson appeals the distri ct court’s order remanding Savvy Ventures, L.L.C.’s (Savvy Ventures) state court eviction petition against Robinson, which he removed to fede ral court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1443(1). Robinson primarily assert s that controlling authority has been

_____________________

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED July 12, 2023 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 22-40699 Document: 00516818252 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/12/2023No. 22-40699

2 implicitly overruled and that Savvy Ve ntures’s counsel violated rules of professional conduct and federal law. Although a remand order in a r emoved case is ordinarily not appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d), that section makes an exception for cases removed pursuant to § 1443 for alleged civil rights violations. See BP P.L.C. v. Mayor & City Council of Balt., 141 S. Ct. 1532, 1538 (2021); Whitaker v. Carney , 778 F.2d 216, 219 (5th Cir. 1985). We review de novo the district court’s remand order. Latiolais v. Huntington Ingalls , Inc. , 951 F.3d 286, 290 (5th Cir. 2020) (en banc). Removal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1443 applies only to rights that are stated in terms of racial eq uality and not to generally applicable constitutional rights. Georgia v. Rachel , 384 U.S. 780, 791 (1966). Thus, Robinson’s allegations, which do not implicate the denial or enforcement of his civil rights under a statute prot ecting racial equality, were insufficient to warrant removal under § 1443. See § 1443(1); see also Rachel , 384 U.S. at 792. Robinson has shown no error in connect ion with the district court’s remand order.
This is Robinson’s second unsucce ssful appeal challenging a district court’s order remanding a case that Ro binson removed pursuant to § 1443. See Hibernia Nat’l Bank v. Robinson , No. 02-40895, 02-40373, 2003 WL 21108502, 2 (5th Cir. Apr. 21, 2003) (unpublished). Accordingly, Robinson is warned that the filing of frivolous, repetitive, or otherwise abusive pleadings will invite the imposition of sanctions, which may include dismissal, monetary sanctions, and restri ctions on his ability to file pleadings in this court and any court subjec t to this court’s jurisdiction. See Coghlan v. Starkey , 852 F.2d 806, 817 n.21 (5th Cir. 1988).
The district court’s remand order is AFFIRMED . Robinson’s request that this court disqualif y Savvy Ventures’s counsel is DENIED

. Case: 22-40699 Document: 00516818252 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/12/2023
#### GILBERT, Appellant, v. WESTERGREN, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

March 22, 1906.)

Action by Leon Gilbert against M. F. West-ergren.

No opinion. Judgment unanimously .affirmed, with costs.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
GEOLOGICAL, SURVEY

BULLETIN 1028

PLATE 5

52°05"

176°10

‘Swallow Head

{>

ao Teapot Rock
of

‘SEDIMENTARY ROCKS

Alluvium, dune and beach sands

EXPLANATION

IGNEOUS ROCKS

Most of island is covered with pumice,
‘generally less than 1 foot thick, but
locally more than 20 feet thick; not
shown on map

‘QUATERNARY

Basalt dome extruded in crater of
Great Sitkin Volcano in 1945,
‘as exposed in September 1946

Great Sitkin voleanies

|Composite cone of Great Sitkin Volcano
Principally basalt and andesite flows,
but includes some tuff layers
UNCONFORMITY.

Cape Akuyan

52°00

Cape Kiugilak “SE”

76"10"

BAY

Lava flows
Principally andesite,but includes
few basalt flows

Sand Bay voleanice

Agglomerate
Includes a few thin flows
UNCONFORMITY

Fumarole

Ned
Strike and dip of beds
4

Strike of vertical beds

jugle Point

9715,

‘TRUE NORTH.

‘SECCINATION 548

176"00"

‘QUATERNARY

TERTIARY

PERMIAN)
PENNSYLVANIAN (2)

52°00

Compiled by U. S. Geological Survey, 1946,

Topography
from U. S. Army Air Force photographs. Base from
U. S. Coast and Geodetic Survey charts 9139 and 9193,

Geology by F. S. Simons, D. E. Mathewson, and T. E. Turner, 1946

EXPLANATION
‘SEDIMENTARY ROCKS

Great Sitkin voloanics

8000'

6000"

2000}

Sea tev

Tsa and Ts!

Crater voleano

Peak voleano

Tsa and Ts!

P Sulphur Point

Seale 1:50,000
°

1

~ Contour interval 200 feet
Datum is ocean surface at time of photography

_yMie

Composite cone of Great Sitkin Volcano

tuff breccia and agglomerate, Tec,

UNCONFORMITY,

Sand Bay volcanics

UNCONFORMITY.

BS
Finger Bay volcanics

as

Lava flows of crater voleano stage,Tgc;; lava
flows of peak voleano stage, Teco ; tuff,Tec3;

‘QUATERNARY

TERTIARY

PERMIAN (7)
‘OR
PENNSYLVANIAN (?)
NOX Emission Control Option: Low NOX Main Burner

 TOTAL CAPITAL COST , TCC TOTAL ANNUAL COST COST EFFECTIVENESS

 Purchased Equipment Costs (PEC) $824,614.69 Direct Annual Costs

Engineering $522,921.80

Controls Operating Labor $22,764.42 Total Annual Costs $ 765,048.06

Other Maintenance Labor $45,528.84 Baseline Nox (TPY) 2829.5

Maintenance Materials $50,000.00 NOx after Technology Application 1095

Total PEC = $1,347,536.49 Electricity $110,000.00 NOX removed (TPY) 1,734.5

 Premium for Expedited $0.00 Total Direct Annual Costs $228,293.26

 Total FOB $1,347,536.49

 Sales Tax $0.00 Cost Efficiency:

 Freight & Insurance $0.00 Indirect Annual Costs $/ton NOX removed $441

 Total PEC = $1,347,536.49 Overhead $70,975.96

 Property Tax $0.00

 Direct Installation Costs (DIC) $1,411,365.16 Insurance $28,464.23

 Administrative Charges $142,321.13

 Total Direct Cost (DC=PEC+DIC) $2,758,901.65 Capital Recovery $294,993.49

Total Indirect Annual Costs $536,754.80

 Indirect Installation Costs (IIC) $87,521.01

 Contingencies (C) $0.00

Line 6 Indurating Furnace - 60% Coal/40% Natural Gas Fuel Mix

U. S. Steel Minntac

Mountain Iron, MN

 Total Indirect Cost (IC=IIC+C) $87,521.01

 TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT, TCI (DC+IC) $2,846,422.66 TOTAL ANNUAL COST, TAC $765,048

1 of 1
NOX Emission Control Option: Low NOX Main Burner

 TOTAL CAPITAL COST , TCC TOTAL ANNUAL COST COST EFFECTIVENESS

 Purchased Equipment Costs (PEC) $824,614.69 Direct Annual Costs

Engineering $522,921.80

Controls Operating Labor $22,764.42 Total Annual Costs $ 765,048.06

Other Maintenance Labor $45,528.84 Baseline Nox (TPY) 4520.2

Maintenance Materials $50,000.00 NOx after Technology Application 876

Total PEC = $1,347,536.49 Electricity $110,000.00 NOX removed (TPY) 3,644.2

 Premium for Expedited $0.00 Total Direct Annual Costs $228,293.26

 Total FOB $1,347,536.49

 Sales Tax $0.00 Cost Efficiency:

 Freight & Insurance $0.00 Indirect Annual Costs $/ton NOX removed $210

 Total PEC = $1,347,536.49 Overhead $70,975.96

 Property Tax $0.00

 Direct Installation Costs (DIC) $1,411,365.16 Insurance $28,464.23

 Administrative Charges $142,321.13

 Total Direct Cost (DC=PEC+DIC) $2,758,901.65 Capital Recovery $294,993.49

Total Indirect Annual Costs $536,754.80

 Indirect Installation Costs (IIC) $87,521.01

 Contingencies (C) $0.00

U. S. Steel Minntac

Mountain Iron, MN

Line 6 Indurating Furnace - 100% Natural Gas

 Total Indirect Cost (IC=IIC+C) $87,521.01

 TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT, TCI (DC+IC) $2,846,422.66 TOTAL ANNUAL COST, TAC $765,048

1 of 1
$522,921.80 Engineering

824,614.69 Equipment

1,411,365.16 Installation

$2,758,901.65 Total Capital

68,172.60 Relocation/Spending

19,348.41 Demo

$2,846,422.66 Total Project Spending

MOO-Minntac

Line 6 Low NOx Kiln Burner

Spending Summary
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Dennis C. McGuire, Appellant.

In a *coram nobis*proceeding, defendant appeals from an order of the County Court, Suffolk County, dated February 8, 1963, which denied without a hearing his application to vacate a judgment of said court rendered June 5, 1957 after a jury trial, convicting him of robbery in the first degree and imposing sentence. The judgment of conviction was previously affirmed by this court (14 A D 2d 900, mot. for lv. to app. den., Desmond, Ch. J., March 7, 1962 — the conviction being there erroneously referred to as one of burglary in the first degree). Order affirmed. We shall assume that, under appropriate circumstances, a judgment of conviction may be set aside in a *coram nobis*proceeding based on the fact that the defendant’s retained attorney was hard of hearing (but see *People*v. *Brown,*7 N Y 2d 359; *People*v. *Girardi,*2 A D 2d 701; *Moss*v. *Hunter,*167 F. 2d 683, 684). Nevertheless, it does not appear that the attorney’s competence and difficulty in hearing were such as to deprive this defendant of fundamental rights or effective representation in a trial in which the codefendants were ■ represented by separate counsel, nor that the trial was a farce and mockery of justice (cf. *People*v. *Girardi, supra; People*v. *Brown, supra).*The defendant also contends that he was not present in the courtroom when, at the request of the jury for an exhibit (the appellant’s statement or confession), the exhibit was reread to the jury. He does not contend that his attorney was absent from the courtroom at that time. Assuming that such contention may be urged in a *coram nobis*proceeding despite the fact that the issue was not raised in the defendant’s appeal from the judgment of conviction (but see *People*v. *Shapiro,*3 N Y 2d 203), nevertheless, his absence from the courtroom at that time had no “ relation, reasonably substantial, to the fulness of his opportunity to defend against the charge” *(Snyder*v. *Massachusetts,*291 U. S. 97, 105-108; cf. *People ex rel. McBride*v. *Fay,*19 A D 2d 712, affd. 14 N Y 2d 843; *People ex rel. Lupo*v. *Fay,*13 N Y 2d 253; *People*v. *Merrill,*286 App. Div. 307, 309). There was no prejudice to the. defendant’s rights *(People*v. *Merrill, supra).*(For related appeals, see *People*v. *McBride,*9 A D 2d 695; *People ex rel.*
      *797
      *McBride*v. *Fay, supra.)*Ughetta, Acting P. J., Christ, Brennan, Hill and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
#### § 1033.4 Plant.

See § 1000.4.