alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Ernest Baron, Appellant, v Dolores Baron, Respondent.

a matrimonial action, the plaintiff husband appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated August 27, 1979, which directed a deduction in the amount of $642.96 per month from plaintiff’s wages and disability pension pursuant to section 49-b of the Personal Property Law, to satisfy a prior order of the same court, dated November 8,1978, which, *inter alia,*awarded defendant temporary alimony and under which plaintiff is in arrears. Order affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements. The principal issue is whether the New York court, forum for plaintiff’s initial action for divorce, has continuing jurisdiction over this matter, sufficient to enforce a *pendente lite*support order awarded in favor of defendant, where there has been subsequent entry of plaintiff’s ex parte divorce decree in the State of Virginia. We find correct Special Term’s implicit finding of such continuing jurisdiction as evidenced by enforcement of the 1978 support order. The doctrine of divisible divorce, whereby the severance of the marital *res*may be adjudicated in that forum possessing subject matter jurisdiction (in this case, Virginia), and any property rights ancillary to the marital status must be adjudicated in that forum possessing in personam jurisdiction over that spouse who failed to appear in the foreign divorce action (in this case, New *798York), may not be postulated for the proposition that termination of the marital status (by ex parte decree of divorce), operates to extinguish the effect of any interim support order previously entered in that forum possessing personal jurisdiction over the nonappearing spouse, and in such spouse’s favor. Since the facts at bar present a case where the interim support order is in the nature of an award of temporary alimony, there must additionally be a pending matrimonial action before the New York court to support enforcement of such interim order subsequent to entry of an ex parte decree of divorce in a sister State. We have such a situation herein. Absent an order of the court or a proper bilateral discontinuance of the divorce action originally commenced in New York (defendant’s counsel never signed the discontinuance stipulation), such action survives, and supports enforcement of the previously entered order awarding *pendente lite*relief in favor of the defendant wife. Mollen, P. J., Gibbons, Martuscello and Weinstein, JJ., concur.
§ 205.304 Packaged products labeled “made with organic (specified ingredients or food group(s)).” ( a ) Agricultural products in packages described in § 205.301(c) may display on the principal display panel, information panel, and any other panel and on any labeling or market information concerning the product: ( 1 ) The statement: ( i ) “Made with organic (specified ingredients)”: *Provided,* That, the statement does not list more than three organically produced ingredients; or
( ii ) “Made with organic (specified food groups)”: *Provided,* That, the statement does not list more than three of the following food groups: beans, fish, fruits, grains, herbs, meats, nuts, oils, poultry, seeds, spices, sweeteners, and vegetables or processed milk products; and, *Provided further,* That, all ingredients of each listed food group in the product must be organically produced; and
( iii ) Which appears in letters that do not exceed one-half the size of the largest type size on the panel and which appears in its entirety in the same type size, style, and color without highlighting.
( 2 ) The percentage of organic ingredients in the product. The size of the percentage statement must not exceed one-half the size of the largest type size on the panel on which the statement is displayed and must appear in its entirety in the same type size, style, and color without highlighting.
( 3 ) The seal, logo, or other identifying mark of the certifying agent that certified the handler of the finished product.
( b ) Agricultural products in packages described in § 205.301(c) must: ( 1 ) In the ingredient statement, identify each organic ingredient with the word, “organic,” or with an asterisk or other reference mark which is defined below the ingredient statement to indicate the ingredient is organically produced. Water or salt included as ingredients cannot be identified as organic.
( 2 ) On the information panel, below the information identifying the handler or distributor of the product and preceded by the statement, “Certified organic by * * *,” or similar phrase, identify the name of the certifying agent that certified the handler of the finished product: *Except,* That, the business address, Internet address, or telephone number of the certifying agent may be included in such label.
( c ) Agricultural products in packages described in § 205.301(c) must not display the USDA seal.
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Hugo Aguilar v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01-21-00680-CR

Trial court case number: 17-DCR-080285A

Trial court: 434th District Court of Fort Bend County

Appellant, Hugo Aguilar, has filed a Third Motion for Extension to File Appellate Brief. 

The motion is granted. Appellant’s brief is due September 22, 2022. No further extensions 

will be granted.

If appellant’s brief is not filed by September 22, 2022, the case will be abated and 

remanded to the trial court for a hearing to determine (a) whether appellant desires to prosecute 

his appeal; (b) whether appellant’s counsel has abandoned the appeal; (c) the reason for the 

failure to file a brief; and (d) if the appellant desires to continue the appeal, a date certain when 

appellant’s brief will be filed. TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(b).

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: ___________/s/ Julie Countiss_________

Acting individually 

Date: August 30, 2022
September 3, 2014 

US. Department of Transportation 

Docket Operations 

West Building Ground Floor 

Room W12-140 

1200 New Jersey Avenue 

SE Washington, DC 20590. 

My name is Lesly Sanchez Landron, Airman certificate number 3414012. 

Through this letter and in accordance with Title 14 Aeronautics and Space of the CFR, Section 11.81, I 

submit the following information and petition for an exemption of 14 Code of the FAR Part 65.91(c) (1). 

The main reason of my request is specific relief from the 3 year requirement with both certificates, to be 

eligible for an Inspection Authority. I have been active engage without interruption for more than 40 years 

in aviation maintenance and certification activities, 

Due to a certificate action on 2010, result of a controversial situation in which no violation was found, 

(FAA letter attached), my airframe authorization was removed from my Airframe and Power Plant 

Certificate, consequently losing my Inspector Authorization Permit. However I recover back the airframe 

certificate on June 2012, without any problem. (2 years and 3 months ago). 

I understand that the purpose of 3 years minimum of continuous experience of the law is to protect the 

public from low time/experience Inspectors, (A/1). By that reason there is no doubt that the principal intent 

of the regulation has been fully accomplished, taking into consideration previous experience. By this 

reason I understand that public safety is not an issue. Granting the exemption would not adversely affect 

safety, and would provide the level of provided by the rule. 

Additionally, the General Aviation community will benefit by having an additional source /alternative for 

their inspection requirements. I will appreciate your prompt attention to this matter. 

Thanks 

Sincerely: 

Lesly Sanchez Landron. 

Physical and mailing address: 

Urb .Marina Bahia, 

RC-10 Ave. Punta Las Marias, Catano, P.R. 00962-6718. 

Tel. 787-466-0906. 

Airman Certificate 3414012. 

Attached: FAA Letter dated January 15, 2010 
U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

federal Aviation 

Administration 

January 15, 2010 

SANCHEZ LANDRON, lESLIE 

URB MARINABA..11IA 

RCIO AVE PUNTA LAS MARIAS 

CAT.A.NO, PR 00962-6718 

MIAMI FLT STDS DIST OFFICE 

8600 NW 36TH STREET 

ROOM201 

MIAMI, FL 33166 

(305)716-3400 

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has investigated an alleged violation that reportedly occurred 

on Friday~ June 12, 2009 in the vicinity of SAN JUAN, RQ. 

This letter is to inform you that the investigation did not establish a violation of the Federal Aviation 

Regulations, and you may consider the matter Closed. 

Should you have any questions, feel free to contact our office. 

Additional Information On Back
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 223 (Friday, November 19, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 70915]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-29206]



[[Page 70915]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Army


Intent To Grant an Exclusive License for a U.S. Government-Owned 
Invention

AGENCY: Department of the Army, DoD.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209(e), and 37 CFR 404.7 
(a)(1)(i) and 37 CFR 404.7 (b)(1)(i), announcement is made of the 
intent to grant an exclusive, revocable license for the invention 
claimed in the patent application PCT/US2009/045818, filed June 1, 
2009, entitled, ``Meningococcal Multivalent Native Outer Membrane 
Vesicle Vaccine, Methods of Making and Use Thereof,'' to Merck Sharp & 
Dohme Corp., with its principal place of business at One Merck Drive, 
Whitehouse Station, NJ 08889-3400.

ADDRESSES: Commander, U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command, 
ATTN: Command Judge Advocate, MCMR-JA, 504 Scott Street, Fort Detrick, 
Frederick, MD 21702-5012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For licensing issues, Dr. Paul Mele, 
Office of Research and Technology Applications (ORTA), (301) 619-6664. 
For patent issues, Ms. Elizabeth Arwine, Patent Attorney, (301) 619-
7808, both at telefax (301) 619-5034.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Anyone wishing to object to the grant of 
this license can file written objections along with supporting 
evidence, if any, within 15 days from the date of this publication. 
Written objections are to be filed with the Command Judge Advocate (see 
ADDRESSES).

Brenda S. Bowen,
Army Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 2010-29206 Filed 11-18-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3710-08-P
#### § 28.504 Color Grade No. 4.

Color grade No. 4 shall be American Pima cotton which in color is within the range represented by a set of samples in the custody of the U.S. Department of Agriculture in a container marked “Original Official Cotton Standards of the United States, American Pima, Color Grade No. 4, effective July 1, 1986.”

[65 FR 36600, June 9, 2000]
§ 205.305 Multi-ingredient packaged products with less than 70 percent organically produced ingredients. ( a ) An agricultural product with less than 70 percent organically produced ingredients may only identify the organic content of the product by: ( 1 ) Identifying each organically produced ingredient in the ingredient statement with the word, “organic,” or with an asterisk or other reference mark which is defined below the ingredient statement to indicate the ingredient is organically produced, and
( 2 ) If the organically produced ingredients are identified in the ingredient statement, displaying the product's percentage of organic contents on the information panel.
( b ) Agricultural products with less than 70 percent organically produced ingredients must not display: ( 1 ) The USDA seal; and
( 2 ) Any certifying agent seal, logo, or other identifying mark which represents organic certification of a product or product ingredients.
exhibit 10(m)




Exhibit
10(m)

Paul
O’Malley Employment Arrangements







TXU
Energy Holdings Company LLC (“TXU Energy”) employs Paul O’Malley as its Chairman
of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer. Mr. O’Malley is employed as
an at-will employee of TXU Energy. TXU Energy pays Mr. O’Malley an annual salary
equal to $475,000, and Mr. O’Malley is eligible for an annual bonus under the
terms of the TXU Corp. Annual Incentive Plan and award grants under the TXU
Corp. Long Term Incentive Compensation Plan (“LTIP”). In addition to the
compensation described above, TXU Energy reimburses Mr. O’Malley for certain
expatriate expenses, including payments for home lease, utilities, furniture
rental, school tuition and fees and tax equalization.
Editorial Note on Part 1980
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1980 appear at 80 FR 9905, Feb. 24, 2015.

§ 1980.441 Borrower equity requirements. ( a ) A minimum of 10 percent tangible balance sheet equity will be required for existing businesses at loan closing. A minimum of 20 percent tangible balance sheet equity will be required for new businesses at loan closing. For energy projects, the minimum tangible balance sheet equity requirement range will be between 25 percent and 40 percent. Criteria for considering the minimum equity required for an individual application will be based on: existing businesses with successful financial and management history vs. start-up businesses; personal/corporate guarantees offered; contractual relationships with suppliers and buyers; credit rating; and strength of the business plan/feasibility study. Where the application is a request to refinance outstanding Federal direct or guaranteed loans, without any new financing, the equity requirement may be determined using adjusted tangible net worth. An application that combines a refinancing loan or guarantee request with a new loan or guarantee request is subject to the standard, unadjusted, equity requirement except as provided in paragraphs (a)(1) or (a)(2) of this section. Increases or decreases in the equity requirements may be imposed or granted as follows: ( 1 ) A reduction in the equity requirement for existing businesses may be permitted by the Administrator. In order for a reduction to be considered, the borrower must furnish the following: ( i ) Collateralized personal and corporate guarantees, including any parent, subsidiary, or affiliated company, when feasible and legally permissible, and
( ii ) Pro forma and historical financial statements that indicate the business to be financed meets or exceeds the median quartile (as identified in the Risk Management Association's Annual Statement Studies or similar publication) for the current ratio, quick ratio, debt-to-worth ratio, debt coverage ratio, and working capital.
( 2 ) The approval official may require more than the minimum equity requirements provided in this paragraph if the official makes a written determination that special circumstances necessitate this course of action.
( b ) The equity requirement must be met in the form of either cash or tangible earning assets contributed to the business and reflected on the balance sheet.
( c ) The equity requirement must be determined using balance sheets prepared in accordance with GAAP and met upon giving effect to the entirety of the loan in the calculation, whether or not the loan itself is fully advanced, as of the date the loan is closed; a certification to this effect is required of all guaranteed lenders.
( d ) The modified formula for determining whether the equity requirement is met, “adjusted tangible net worth,” may be used only in cases where the guarantee requested is for a loan, the proceeds of which are to be used entirely to refinance a debt owed to the Federal government or Federally guaranteed debt. In all other situations, the equity requirement must be determined using tangible net worth.
[71 FR 33187, June 8, 2006]
**Exhibit
      32**




**CERTIFICATIONS
      PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**




In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of Stone Arcade Acquisition Corporation
      (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended September 30, 2005 as filed
      with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
      I, Roger Stone, Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive and Financial
      Officer) of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted
      pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best
      of
      my knowledge:




(1)  The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and




(2)  The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and result of operations of the Company for the period
      certified.




Pursuant
      to the rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission, this
      certification is being furnished and is not deemed filed.




Signed
      on
      this 12th day of December, 2006.




/s/
              Roger Stone
              Roger
                Stone
AO 247 (02/08) Order Regarding Motion for Sentence Reduction

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

NorTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

United States of America )
v. )
Virgil Talley ) Case No: 3:96cr65-008/MCR
) USM No: 51005-004
Date of Previous Judgment: February 26, 1999 )
(Use Date of Last Amended Judgment if Applicable) ) Defendant's Attorney

Order Regarding Motion for Sentence Reduction Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)

Upon motion of & the defendant 0 the Director of the Bureau of Prisons © the court under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(2) for a reduction in the term of imprisonment imposed based on a guideline sentencing range that has
subsequently been lowered and made retroactive by the United States Sentencing Commission pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 994(u), and having considered such motion,

IT IS ORDERED that the motion is:
& DENIED. & GRANTED and the defendant’s previously imposed sentence of imprisonment (as reflected in

the last judgment issued) of 295 months is reduced to 248
I. COURT DETERMINATION OF GUIDELINE RANGE (Prior to Any Departures)
Previous Offense Level: 38 Amended Offense Level: 36
Criminal History Category: I Criminal History Category: I

Previous Guideline Range: 235 to _ 293 months Amended Guideline Range: 188 to_235_ months

II. SENTENCE RELATIVE TO AMENDED GUIDELINE RANGE

®& The reduced sentence is within the amended guideline range.

SG The previous term of imprisonment imposed was less than the guideline range applicable to the defendant at the time
of sentencing as a result of a departure or Rule 35 reduction, and the reduced sentence is comparably less than the
amended guideline range.

Other (explain):

I. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS

Defendant’s sentence is computed by taking the low end of the guideline range and adding the 60 month mandatory
consecutive term as to Count Five.

All provisions of the judgment dated___February 26, 1999 shall remain in effect.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Order Date: -/ -h WM.

judge's Ledge)

Effective Date: M. Casey Rodgers, United States District Judge
(if different from order date) Printed name and title

pecan OUD Inga 08
FLN (Rev. 3/2007) Deficiency Order Page 1 of 1

3:97cr24LAC - UNITED STATES OF AMERICA vs. TERRELL ORONTO EVANS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

vs

TERRELL ORONTO EVANS

Case No.3:97cr24LAC

ORDER

Your document, PRO SE NUNC PRO TUNC MOTION FOR POSTCONVICTION

RELIEF, was referred to the undersigned with the following deficiencies:

The document does not have a Certificate of Service as required by Rule

5(b) and (d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, showing proper

service.

For these reasons, IT IS ORDERED that the Clerk shall return the document to the

filing party.

DONE and ORDERED this 18th day of November, 2008.

s/L.A. Collier

LACEY A. COLLIER

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:97-cr-00024-LC-MD Document 118 Filed 11/18/08 Page 1 of 1
LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES
                    OF CANTERBURY CORPORATE SERVICES, INC.

Canterbury Career Schools, Inc. (inactive)
Canterbury Career School of Sacramento, Inc. (inactive)
Canterbury Career School of Pittsburgh, Inc. (inactive)
Canterbury Management Group, Inc.
Scholastic Partners, Inc. (inactive)
Educational Advisors, Inc. (inactive)
Star Label Products, Inc. (shell)
Clark Training Corp. (inactive)
MSI/Canterbury Corp. (formerly known as J.C. Kenny, Inc. d/b/a Motivational
   Systems, Inc.)
Empire Career Center, Inc. (inactive)
Canterbury Career School of Lauderdale (inactive)
CALC/Canterbury Corp.
Prosoft/Canterbury Corp.
Nevada Training Corp.
Vocational Education Corp. d/b/a American Trucking Academy
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-7195

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

FLOYD G. QUINERLY,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. John A. MacKenzie, Senior District

Judge. (CR-93-32-N, CA-96-359)

Submitted: January 30, 1998 Decided: February 24, 1998

Before ERVIN and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Floyd G. Quinerly, Appellant Pro Se. Harvey Lee Bryant, III,

Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Floyd G. Quinerly appeals from the district court's order denying his motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1995 & Supp. 1997).

We deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss.

Quinerly raised two claims in his § 2255 motion: (1) that he

did not "use" a firearm as defined by the Supreme Court in Bailey

v. United States, ___ U.S. ___, 64 U.S.L.W. 4039 (U.S. Dec. 6,

1995) (Nos. 94-7448, 94-7492); and (2) that his possession of the

firearm did not occur "during and in relation to...a drug

trafficking crime." Because the second of these claims is a nonconstitutional error that could have been raised on direct appeal,

Quinerly may not now attack it via a § 2255 motion. See Stone v.

Powell, 428 U.S. 465, 477 n.10 (1976). We therefore conclude that

the claim is waived and dismiss the appeal as to that claim.

As to Quinerly's Bailey claim, we agree with the district

court that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the jury's verdict because it established that Quinerly actually "carried" the

firearm in question. See United States v. Hudgins, 120 F.3d 483,

487-88 (4th Cir. 1997); United States v. Mitchell, 104 F.3d 649,

654 (4th Cir. 1997). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in

the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED