alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

NORTHERN DIVISION 

RALPH BROWN, ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiff, ) 

 ) Case Number: 2:06-CV-642-MEF 

v. ) 

 ) 

CHAMPION ENTERPRISES, INC., et al. ) 

 ) 

 Defendants. ) 

 

PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND

 COMES NOW, Plaintiff, by and through counsel of record, pursuant to the Court’s July 

31, 2007 Order to show cause as the why Defendant’s Motion for Leave to Amend its reply 

should not be granted. 

 Plaintiff has no objection to Defendant Champion Enterprises, Inc. amending its reply to 

Plaintiff’s Response to Champion Enterprises, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss or, in the alternative, 

Motion for Summary Judgment in order to advise the Court of the decision in Nicholas 

Strickland, et al. v. Champion Enterprises, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-682-TFM. However, 

Plaintiff would note that the ruling in Strickland is not controlling on this Court. 

/s/ C. Lance Gould _ 

 C. LANCE GOULD (ASB-0913-G66C) 

 Attorney for Plaintiff 

OF COUNSEL: 

BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, 

METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P.C. 

Attorneys at Law 

Post Office Box 4160 

Montgomery, AL 36103-4160 

(334) 269-2343 

(334) 954-7555 (fax) 

Case 2:06-cv-00642-MEF-SRW Document 31 Filed 08/06/2007 Page 1 of 2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that I have electronically filed the original of the foregoing document in 

this Court and served a copy upon all Defendants of record as listed below by placing a copy of 

same in the United States Mail, first class, postage prepaid on this the 6th day of August, 2007. 

 /s/ C. Lance Gould 

 OF COUNSEL 

Gregory S. Ritchey 

RITCHEY & SIMPSON, PLLC 

3288 Morgan Drive, Suite 100 

Birmingham, Alabama 35216 

Case 2:06-cv-00642-MEF-SRW Document 31 Filed 08/06/2007 Page 2 of 2
#### NNA Restaurant Management LLC, Respondent, v Mahrokh Eshaghian et al., Respondents, and Nolita Oasis, Inc., Intervenor Appellant.

[815 NYS2d 499]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.H.O.), entered August 8, 2005, which, in an action by a commercial tenant against its landlord for a *Yellowstone*injunction, after a nonjury trial, inter alia, dismissed intervenor defendant-appellant’s cross claims against landlord for injunctive relief compelling landlord’s consent to tenant’s assignment of the lease to appellant, and for damages based on landlord’s tortious interference with such assignment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

So much of the appeal as concerns appellant’s cross claim for injunctive relief has been rendered moot by tenant’s surrender of the lease to landlord subsequent to the entry of the order on appeal. We note law of the case that appellant is not a third-party beneficiary of the lease and cannot compel landlord’s consent to the assignment in that capacity. Assuming appellant has a claim for tortious interference with contract or business relations based on landlord’s alleged unreasonable withholding of consent, such claim was properly dismissed upon findings that when the assignment was first proposed after tenant’s institution of the instant action, tenant was in default of its rent obligation, and that landlord’s withholding of consent therefore was not unreasonable (see *Sayed v Rapp,*10 AD3d 717, 720 [2004]; *cf. F.H.R. Auto Sales v Scutti,*144 AD2d 956, 958 [1988]). Tenant’s proposed payment of a sum of money in exchange for landlord’s release of tenant’s lease obligations and *385consent to the assignment would have transformed the proposed assignment into a novation, for which landlord was not required to act reasonably. In any event, as the judicial hearing officer also found, even if tenant were not in default of its lease obligations, landlord’s withholding of consent was reasonably based on appellant’s and tenant’s failure to provide appropriate information about appellant *(see 200 Eighth Ave. Rest. Corp. v Daytona Holding Corp.,*293 AD2d 353 [2002]). We have considered and rejected appellant’s other arguments. Concur— Tom, J.P., Andrias, Friedman, Williams and Sweeny, JJ.
§ 799.8 Significant environmental effect. ( a ) In determining whether a proposed action will have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment, FSA will consider the proposed action's potential effects in the context of society as a whole, the affected region and interests, the locality, and the intensity of the potential impact as specified in 40 CFR 1508.27.
( b ) [Reserved]
Order filed, September 6, 2018.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-18-00663-CV

____________

ROY JORDAN, JR., Appellant

V.

CENTERPOINT ENERGY HOUSTON ELECTRIC, LLC AND 

CENTERPOINT ENERGY, INC., Appellee

On Appeal from the 190th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2015-53281

ORDER

The reporter’s record in this case was due September 4, 20198. See Tex. R. 

App. P. 35.1. The court has not received a request to extend time for filing the 

record. The record has not been filed with the court. Because the reporter’s record 

has not been filed timely, we issue the following order.

We order My-Thuy Cieslar, the court reporter, to file the record in this 

appeal within 15 days of the date of this order. 

PER CURIAM
NO. CAAP-20-0000099

(Consolidated with CAAP-20-0000100)

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

CAAP-20-0000099

IN THE MATTER OF ADOPTION OF A MALE CHILD

AND

CAAP-20-0000100

IN THE MATTER OF ADOPTION OF A MALE CHILD

APPEAL FROM THE FAMILY COURT OF THE THIRD CIRCUIT

(FC-A NO. 18-1-0005K and FC-A NO. 18-1-19K)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

(By: Ginoza, Chief Judge, Hiraoka and Nakasone, JJ.)

Upon consideration of the Motion for Reconsideration,

to Dismiss Petition for Adoption and to Vacate All Proceedings in

These Consolidated Matters (Motion) filed by Petitioner-Appellant

DG (Grandmother) on January 18, 2022, the papers in support, and

the record, it appears that:

(1) Grandmother moves for reconsideration of our

Memorandum Opinion filed on December 28, 2021, to dismiss the

underlying petition and to vacate all proceedings in these

consolidated matters; and

(2) The Motion presents no point of law or fact that

we overlooked or misapprehended. See Hawai#i Rules of Appellate

Procedure Rule 40(b). 

Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-20-0000099

21-JAN-2022

07:53 AM

Dkt. 172 ODMR
Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion is

denied.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, January 21, 2022.

/s/ Lisa M. Ginoza

Chief Judge

/s/ Keith K. Hiraoka

Associate Judge

/s/ Karen T. Nakasone

Associate Judge

2
(May 16, 1969)

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Anthony Fiordilino, Appellant.

Reynolds, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court, Ulster County, upon a verdict convicting appellant of the crimes of selling and possessing a narcotic drug (former Penal Law, § 1751, subd. 1; § 1751-a, subd. 1). The instant record contains ample evidence for the jury to find appellant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt both of the sale and possession of narcotics (see *People*v. *Wright,*20 A D 2d 652, affd. 15 N Y 2d 555). The jury could clearly accept Detective Polizzi’s testimony as to what transpired and, by inference, conclude that appellant intended to make the sale to Polizzi. Absolute certainty is not required when the evidence logically points to the defendant’s guilt (see *People*v. *Regina,*19 N Y 2d 65; *People*v. *Eckert,*2 N Y 2d 126). We find no merit in appellant’s additional contention and, accordingly, the judgment must be affirmed. Judgment affirmed. Herlihy, J. P., Reynolds, Aulisi, Cooke and G-reenblott, JJ., concur in memorandum by Reynolds, J.
§ 784.13 Refunds; joint and several liability. ( a ) In the event there is an inaccurate certification or a failure to comply with any term, requirement, or condition for payment arising under the application, or this part, and if any refund of a payment to FSA shall otherwise become due in connection with the application, or this part, all related payments made under this part to any sheep and lamb operation shall be refunded to FSA together with interest as determined in accordance with paragraph (c) of this section and late payment charges as provided in part 1403 of this title.
( b ) All persons signing a sheep and lamb operation's application for payment as having an interest in the operation shall be jointly and severally liable for any refund, including related charges, that is determined to be due for any reason under the terms and conditions of the application or this part with respect to such operation.
( c ) Interest shall be charged on refunds required of any person under this part if FSA determines that payments or other assistance was provided to a person who was not eligible for such assistance. Such interest shall be charged at the rate of interest that the United States Treasury charges the Commodity Credit Corporation for funds, from the date FSA made such benefits available to the date of repayment or the date interest increases as determined in accordance with applicable regulations. FSA may waive the accrual of interest if FSA determines that the cause of the erroneous determination was not due to any action of the person.
( d ) Interest determined in accordance with paragraph (c) of this section may be waived at the discretion of FSA alone for refunds resulting from those violations determined by FSA to have been beyond the control of the person committing the violation.
( e ) Late payment interest shall be assessed on all refunds in accordance with the provisions of, and subject to the rates prescribed in 7 CFR part 792.
( f ) Any excess payments made by FSA with respect to any application under this part must be refunded.
( g ) In the event that a benefit under this subpart was provided as the result of erroneous information provided by any person, the benefit must be repaid with any applicable interest.
§ 795.3 Definitions. ( a ) The terms defined in part 719 of this chapter, governing reconstitutions of farms, shall be applicable to this part and all documents issued in accordance with this part, except as otherwise provided in this section.
( b ) ( 1 ) Subject to the provisions of this part, the term “person” shall mean an individual, joint stock company, corporation, association, trust, estate, or other legal entity. In order to be considered to be a separate person for the purposes of this part with respect to any crop, in addition to any other provision of this part, an individual or other legal; entity must: ( i ) Have a separate and distinct interest in the crop or the land on which the crop is produced;
( ii ) Exercise separate responsibility for such interest; and
( iii ) Be responsible for payment of the cost of farming related to such interest from a fund or account separate from that of any other individual or entity.
( 2 ) The term “person” shall not include any cooperative association of producers that markets commodities for producers with respect to the commodities so marketed for producers.
( c ) The term “family member” shall mean the individual, the great-grandparent, grand-parent, child, grandchild, and great-grandchild of such individual and the spouses of all such individuals.
( d ) The term “separate unit” shall mean an individual who, prior to December 31, 1985: ( 1 ) Had been engaged in a separate farming operation and
( 2 ) in accordance with the provisions of this part, had been determined to be a separate person or could have so determined under the circumstances existing at such time.
[52 FR 26295, July 14, 1987]
228.311-1 Contract clause.       Use the clause at FAR 52.228-7, Insurance—Liability to Third Persons, in solicitations and contracts, other than those for construction and those for architect-engineer services, when a cost-reimbursement contract is contemplated, unless the head of the contracting activity waives the requirement for use of the clause.    **Parent topic:** 228.311 Solicitation provision and contract clause on liability insurance under cost-reimbursement contracts.
#### § 955.2 Act.

*Act* means Public Act No. 10, 73d Congress (May 12, 1933), as amended and as reenacted and amended by the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (Sec. 1-19, 48 Stat. 31, as amended; 7 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.*).
#### § 932.25 Establishment and membership.

A California Olive Committee consisting of 16 members, is hereby established to administer the terms and provisions of this part. Each member shall have an alternate who meets the same qualifications as the member. Eight of the members and their alternates shall be producers or officers or employees of producers, and eight of the members and their alternates shall be handlers or directors, officers, or employees of handlers. The eight members of the committee who are producers or officers or employees of producers are referred to in this subpart as “producer members” of the committee; and the eight members of the committee who are handlers or directors, officers, or employees of handlers are referred to in this subpart as “handler members” of the committee. The committee may be increased by one public member who shall not be a producer or handler of olives nor an officer or employee or director of any producer or handler of olives. District representation of the producer members shall be two from District 1, four from District 2, and two from District 3. Allocation of the handler members shall be four members to represent cooperative marketing organizations, herein referred to as “cooperative handlers”, and four members to represent handlers who are not cooperative marketing organizations, herein referred to as “independent handlers”: *Provided,* That whenever during the crop year in which nominations are made and in the preceding crop year, the cooperative handlers or the independent handlers handled as first handler 65 percent or more of the total quantity of olives so handled by all handlers, allocation shall be five members to represent the group which so handled 65 percent or more of such olives and three members to represent the group which handled 35 percent or less. The public member and alternate public member shall be selected from any place within the area. The committee may, with the approval of the Secretary, provide such other allocation of producer or handler membership, or both, as may be necessary to assure equitable representation.

[47 FR 32907, July 30, 1982]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FORM 10-QSB
FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIODS ENDED MARCH 31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                         309,325
<SECURITIES>                                 8,193,458
<RECEIVABLES>                                  161,053
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             8,663,836
<PP&E>                                         298,544
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,962,380
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          188,408
<BONDS>                                         55,789
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        36,875
<OTHER-SE>                                   8,681,308
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,962,380
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             (368,862)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (368,862)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (368,862)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (368,862)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.01)
        

</TABLE>
1

VIA FDMS

October 2, 2015

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Federal Aviation Administration

Docket Management System 

1200 New Jersey Ave, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

Re: Caterpillar Inc. - Petition to Amend Exemption No. 12372 in Docket No. FAA-2015-1955

Dear Sir or Madam: 

By letter dated August 6, 2015, the FAA granted Exemption No. 12372 in Docket No. FAA-2015-1955 to Caterpillar 

Inc. (“Caterpillar”), authorizing Caterpillar to operate several models of UAS – specifically, the Trimble UX5; DJI Inspire I; DJI 

Phantom; DJI Phantom 2; and Parrot Bebop -- for certain commercial purposes detailed in the Grant of Exemption. I write now to 

request that the Agency amend Caterpillar’s Exemption No. 12372 to authorize Caterpillar to operate the DJI Phantom 3 and 

Trimble ZX5. 

Both the DJI Phantom 3 and Trimble ZX5 are comparable in type, size, weight, speed, and operating capabilities to the 

UAS whose operations were authorized by the original grant. The agency has already determined that these aircraft meet the 

conditions of Section 333, and has already authorized other petitioners to operate the DJI Phantom 31and Trimble ZX52. 

There have been no changes in the conditions and reasons relative to public interest and safety that formed the basis for 

the FAA granting the original exemption, and Caterpillar will comply with all of the terms and conditions imposed by Exemption 

No. 12372, and update and maintain its operations manuals for the new aircraft. Because the requested amendment would not set 

any precedent or raise any new issues, we request that the FAA issue a summary grant based on the preceding exemptions.

We will be happy to provide any further information that may be needed. 

All communications regarding this petition should be directed to:

Caterpillar Inc.

100 NE Adams Street

Peoria, IL 61629

Attn : Gregory Harris

Ph: 309-494-7622

Email: harris_gregory@cat.com

Very truly yours,

Gregory N. Harris

Caterpillar Inc.

Law & Public Policy/Legal Services Division 

100 NE Adams Street

Peoria, IL 61629

 

1

See Exemption No. 11881A in Docket No. FAA-2015-1228 (Empire Unmanned LLC).

2

See Exemption No. 11110B in Docket No. FAA-2014-0367 (Trimble Navigation Ltd).
#### § 915.54 Inspection and certification.

Whenever the handling of any variety of avocados is regulated pursuant to § 915.51, each handler who handles avocados shall, prior thereto, cause each lot of avocados handled to be inspected by the Federal-State Inspection Service and certified by it as meeting the applicable requirements of such regulation: *Provided,* That such inspection and certification shall not be required whenever the avocados previously have been so inspected and certified. Promptly thereafter, each such handler shall submit, or cause to be submitted, to the committee a copy of the certificate of inspection with respect to such handling.
Case 2:06-cv-00642-MEF-SRW Document 56 Filed 09/08/2008 Page 1 of 2
Case 2:06-cv-00642-MEF-SRW Document 56 Filed 09/08/2008 Page 2 of 2
#### § 75.47 For certificates.

A charge of $13.00 per certificate will be made for copies of certificates other than those required to be distributed in § 75.23 and for the issuance of a duplicate certificate in accordance with § 75.24 and an appeal certificate in § 75.31.

[49 FR 18724, May 2, 1984, as amended at 56 FR 51320, Oct. 11, 1991; 58 FR 64101, Dec. 6, 1993; 60 FR 21035, May 1, 1995; 65 FR 15832, Mar. 24, 2000; 67 FR 11384, Mar. 14, 2002]
Regulatory Evaluation 

# 1-0\ Lt.._(t- 

# o3CZ-- A-0 Docket No. FAA- Directorate Identifier: -AD



### (lyoumake dutll,i!J!S 

### tu tft e ru!ues i11 lit e l ahl e 

### hdmr. you II/US! ensure 

### th<' wtals ltfldu!e on :orcliugl y. 

### (I 1/iey do 11 0 /, dick r or l'uhJ illfo ulllllht!ll o ut 1!{1/ie clwu ged ce ll. Estimated Costs: Action C osts per Product (e.g., aircrafi, engine , (e .g. , Inspection, propeller, appliance) Work-ho u rs Labor Pans Cost Total Costs Number of Total Cost replacement) ( include cost (labor+ 

## u.s. fo r U .S. Fl eet Do not includ e on- con dition cost s here acces s, te sti ng, (@$85/h parts) Registered a

nd c l ose-up ) our) Products Inspection 0 .1 $0 

### 57 Install doubler 4.0 $0 

### 57

The kno wn number o f products in compliance: 

### 0 Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $19,865 Costs covered under warranty (if known) 

## s On-Condition Costs: 

### @ Action Wo r k

-hours Labor cost Parts Cost Cost per Product (e.g., Inspection , (include access, (@$85/hour)

re placement) testing , and closeup) Repair c racki ng 0.5 $0


### Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use thi s field to explain anything in the Estimat e d Costs table that was assumed or might not be obvious
. Th is field can also he use d to exp la in warranty costs ) : The necessary parts kit will be supp lied by Quest Aircraft Design at no cost to the operator. 

### 8Executive Order 12866: I!T1h Could the AD be considered a ' ' significant regulatory

**action''?~** *Explanation: DOT Regulato ry Policies and Procedures: Is the AD significant? 

# G *Explanation: R egulat01-y Flexibility Act: YES* 

## 0

**NO~**

YES*0

**NO ~** 
Will the AD have a significant econom ic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Explain for either 

### a Yes or No answer. 

# 6 YES O

**NO~** Exp lanation: Intrastate Aviation in Alaska : This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for ai rcraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? 

# G YES* 

## 0 NO 

## IXJ *Exp lanation:



### 9
#### NYCTL 1999-1 Trust et al., Respondents, v NY Pride Holdings, Inc., et al., Defendants, and Union Street Management Group, Ltd., Appellant. Baroda Properties, Inc., et al., Proposed Intervenors-Respondents.

Submitted June 18, 2007;

decided September 11, 2007

Reported below, 34 AD3d 774.

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.
###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter VIII

#### Authority:

7 U.S.C. 71-87K, 1621-1627.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter VIII

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to subchapter A appear at 84 FR 45645, Aug. 30, 2019.

#### § 810.1603 Basis of determination.

Each determination of class, heat-damaged kernels, damaged kernels, and splits is made on the basis of the grain when free from foreign material. Other determinations not specifically provided for under the general provisions are made on the basis of the grain as a whole.

[88 FR 45056, July 14, 2023]