alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 1708.114 Official transcripts. ( a ) Official transcripts of witness testimony, whether or not compelled by subpoena to appear before a Board safety investigation, shall be recorded either by an official reporter or by any other person or means designated by the Investigating Officer(s) or the Board's General Counsel.
( b ) Such witness, after completing the compelled testimony, may file a request with the Board's General Counsel to procure a copy of the official transcript of that witness's testimony. The General Counsel shall rule on the request, and may deny for good cause.
( c ) Good cause for denying a witness's request to procure a transcript may include, but shall not be limited to, the protection of a trade secret, non-disclosure of confidential or proprietary business information, security-sensitive operational or vulnerability information, safety privileged information, or the integrity of Board investigations.
( d ) Whether or not a request is made, the witness and his or her attorney shall have the right to inspect the official transcript of the witness's own testimony, in the presence of the Investigating Officer(s) or his designee, for purposes of conducting errata review.
( e ) Transcripts of testimony are otherwise considered confidential and privileged safety information, and in no case shall a copy or any reproduction of such transcript be released to any other person or entity, except as provided in paragraph (b) above or as required under the Freedom of Information Act or the Government in the Sunshine Act, or any procedures or requirements contained in Board regulations issued pursuant to those Acts.
March 10, 2015

Mr. Richard Devine 401 Clayton Avenue Vestal, NY 13850

Dear Mr. Devine:

This letter is to inform you that we are unabl e to process your request for an exemption. It explains why we cannot proce ss your request and what you s hould do in the next 30 days.

Why We Cannot Process Your Request

We entered your February 17, 2015, exemption request into the public docket (No. FAA2015-0379), but we are unable to pr ocess your request any further. The information you sent does not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of the following:

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR fr om which you seek relief and the extent of the relief you seek.

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would benefit the public as a whole.

 The reasons why the exemption would not adve rsely affect safety or how the exemption would provide a level of safety at least equa l to that provided by the rule from which you seek an exemption.

 Any additional information, views, or ar guments available to support your request.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any fu rther, you must send the information described earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requi res you to send your petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days , we will close the docket without notifying you further. If you have any questions or require additiona l time, you may call (202) 267-9677.

Sincerely,

/s/

Nia Daniels Program Analyst, Airmen and Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6628
QUENTIN MCLEAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versusWARDEN OSBORNE; MR. DIXON, Correctional Officer; MR. MARTIN, C/O; MS. HELMS, Healthcare Provider; MR. COLEY, C/O; MR. WOLFE,Counselor; MR. KLEINOD, Psychologist; MARTIN, Healthcare Provider; COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, Divisionof Risk Management, Department of General Services; J. CARBONE, Doctor; R. BARLOW, Treatment Supervisor, Defendants - Appellees.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District Judge. (CA-98-1132-2) Submitted: August 19, 1999 Decided: August 26, 1999Before WIDENER and KING, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Quentin McLean, Appellant Pro Se.* Although the district court’s order is marked as “filed” on April 13, 1999, the district court’s records show that it was entered on the docket sheet on April 15, 1999. Pursuant to Rules 58 and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the date that the order was entered on the docket sheet that we take as the effective date of the district court’s decision. See Wilson v. Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986). 2 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Quentin Martin appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1999) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See McLean v. Osborne , No. CA-98-1132-2 (E.D. Va. Apr. 15, 1999). * 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.

AFFIRMED
Subpart 2426.70 - Minority Business

Enterprises

Parent topic: PART 2426 - OTHER SOCIOECONOMIC PROGRAMS

2426.7001-2426.7002 [Reserved]
428.370 Government-owned vehicles

operated in foreign countries.

USDA is authorized to obtain insurance to cover liability incurred by any of its employees while

acting within the scope of their employment and operating a Government-owned vehicle in a foreign

country. (7 U.S.C. 2262).

Parent topic: Subpart 428.3 - Insurance
#### BRADLEY et al., Respondents, v. DEGNON CONTRACTING CO. et al., Appellants.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

June, 5, 1914.)

Action by Harry L. Bradley and others against the Degnon Contracting Company and another.

No opinion. Motion denied, without costs. See, also, 141 N. Y. Supp. 852.
#### John McCormack et al., Respondents, v Universal Carpet & Upholstery Cleaners, Inc., et al., Respondent-Appellant, and VF Properties, LLC, Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff Respondent-Appellant. Montauk Rug & Carpet, Third-Party *542Defendant-Appellant-Respondent.

[813 NYS2d 668]

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the third-party defendant appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Molia, J.), dated January 6, 2004, as denied, in effect with leave to renew, its cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint and an order of the same court dated March 30, 2004, as denied its motion, denominated as one for leave to reargue and renew, but which was, in actuality, for leave to reargue its prior cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint, and the defendant Universal Carpet & Upholstery Cleaners and the defendant third-party plaintiff separately appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of the order dated March 30, 2004 as denied their cross motion, denominated as one for leave to reargue and renew, but which was, in actuality, for leave to reargue their prior motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the appeals are dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

The appeal by the third-party defendant from the order dated January 6, 2004, has been rendered academic *(see McCormack v Universal Carpet & Upholstery Cleaners,*29 AD3d 542 [2006] [decided herewith]).

The appeals from the order dated March 30, 2004, must be dismissed because no appeal lies from an order denying reargument *(see North Fork Bank v Sawicki,*23 AD3d 632 [2005]). Schmidt, J.P., Adams, Luciano and Covello, JJ., concur.
1The plaintiff had scheduled an earlier meeting with the plaintiff’s physician, but

the physician had to reschedule that meeting for March 16, 2007.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

CHRISTINE BENNETT, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) CIVIL ACTION NO.:

v ) 1:06-CV-723-MHT

)

ARMY FLEET SUPPORT )

SERVICES, LLC, )

)

Defendant. )

UNOPPOSED MOTION TO EXTEND DEADLINE

FOR EXPERT WITNESS REPORTS

COMES NOW the plaintiff and respectfully moves this Court for the entry of an

Order extending by thirty (30) days the deadlines for providing expert reports for all parties

in the above-referenced lawsuit. In support of this motion, the plaintiff states the following:

1. This a disability discrimination case where the parties have requested and finally

received voluminous medical records from the plaintiff’s treating physicians, surgeons and

other sources.

2. The parties did not receive the complete medical records until February of 2007,

and the plaintiff’s counsel was unable to meet with the plaintiff’s surgeon in Dothan until

March 16, 2007.

1

3. Currently, the plaintiff is required to serve her expert reports on March 21, 2007, and

the defendant’s expert reports are due on May 1, 2007.

Case 1:06-cv-00723-MHT-CSC Document 28 Filed 03/19/2007 Page 1 of 3
2

4. The parties have not delayed the prosecution of this case. The parties have been

engaged in active paper discovery, and the plaintiff’s deposition is set for March 21, 2007.

5. This requested extension will not impact on any other deadlines set in this case or

prejudice any party in this case. Discovery does not cutoff until July 30, 2007, and

dispositive motions are due on July 4, 2004.

6. The defendant does not oppose this thirty-day extension of time for the parties to

serve expert reports.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the plaintiff respectfully moves this Court for

entry of an Order extending by thirty (30) days the deadlines for each party to serve the

reports of retained experts in this matter.

Respectfully submitted,

s/ Ethan R. Dettling

Jon C. Goldfarb

Ethan R. Dettling

Counsel for Plaintiff

OF COUNSEL:

WIGGINS, CHILDS, QUINN & PANTAZIS, LLC

The Kress Building

301 19

th Street North

Birmingham, Alabama

Telephone No.: (205) 314-0500

Facsimile No.: (205) 254-1500

Case 1:06-cv-00723-MHT-CSC Document 28 Filed 03/19/2007 Page 2 of 3
3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing document

has been properly filed with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system which will

automatically send electronic notification to the following counsel of record:

Kirk Cordell Shaw

Mary Carol Ladd

Ambrecht Jackson LLP

P.O. Box 290

Mobile, AL 36601-0290

Telephone No.: 251-405-1302

Facsimile No.: 251-432-6843

on this the 19th day of March , 2007.

s/ Ethan R. Dettling

OF COUNSEL

Case 1:06-cv-00723-MHT-CSC Document 28 Filed 03/19/2007 Page 3 of 3
#### § 987.339 Assessment rate.

On and after October 1, 2023, an assessment rate of $0.15 per hundredweight is established for dates produced or packed in Riverside County, California.

[89 FR 25780, Apr. 12, 2024]
50.103-6 Disposition.

In accordance with DFARS 250.103-6, the DLA Acquisition Operations Division will maintain records

of disposition in accordance with DFARS PGI 250.103-6.

Parent topic: 50.103 Contract adjustments.
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3481 

To require the Government Accountability Office to submit a report to Congress on the compliance of the Postal Service with procedural requirements in the closing of the postal sorting facility in Aberdeen, South 

Dakota, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 8, 2006 

Mr. THUNE introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

A BILL 

To require the Government Accountability Office to submit 

a report to Congress on the compliance of the Postal 

Service with procedural requirements in the closing of 

the postal sorting facility in Aberdeen, South Dakota, 

and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. REPORT ON THE POSTAL SORTING FACILITY IN 

4 ABERDEEN, SOUTH DAKOTA . 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 1 year after the 

6 date of enactment of this Act, the Government Account7 ability Office shall submit a report on the compliance of 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
2 

•S 3481 IS

1 the Postal Service with procedural requirements in the 

2 closing of the postal sorting facility in Aberdeen, South 

3 Dakota to— 

4 (1) the Committee on Homeland Security and 

5 Governmental Affairs of the Senate; and 

6 (2) the Committee on Government Reform of 

7 the House of Representatives. 

8 (b) CONTENTS.—The report submitted under sub9 section (a) shall include an evaluation of— 

10 (1) the compliance of the Postal Service with 

11 the requirements of section 404(b) of title 39, 

12 United States Code, (or any other statutory or regu13 latory requirement) with respect to the closing of the 

14 postal sorting facility in Aberdeen, South Dakota; 

15 and 

16 (2) changed circumstances that have occurred 

17 at the postal sorting facility in Aberdeen, South Da18 kota since February 1993 (the date on which the 

19 Government Accountability Office submitted a report 

20 to the Senate on that faclility) that may impact a 

21 reconsideration of the determination to close that fa22 cility. 

23 (c) OPERATION OF THE POSTAL SORTING FACIL24 ITY.—During the period from the date of enactment of 

25 this Act through the date occurring 60 days after the date 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
3 

•S 3481 IS

1 of the submission of the report required by this Act, the 

2 Postal Service may not take any action to close the postal 

3 sorting facility in Aberdeen, South Dakota. 

Æ 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
Case 2:06-cr-00200-WHA-CSC Document 7 Filed 07/14/2006 Page 1 of 1
829.000 Scope of part.

This part states the policies and procedures for the following:

(a) Exemptions of alcohol products purchased for use by the VA medical care program from Federal

excise taxes.

(b) Specified refund procedures for State and local taxes.

Parent topic: PART 829 - TAXES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

MICHAEL DAVID SCEBBI,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 3:20cv5930-TKW-HTC

OFFICE DEPOT INC,

Defendant.

__________________________/

ORDER

This case is before the Court based on the magistrate judge’s Report and 

Recommendation (Doc. 5). No objections were filed. Upon due consideration of 

the Report and Recommendation and the case file, the Court agrees with the 

magistrate judge’s determination that this case should be dismissed for failure to 

prosecute and failure to comply with court orders. Accordingly, it is 

ORDERED that:

1. The magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 5) is 

adopted and incorporated by reference in this order.

2. This case is DISMISSED, and the Clerk shall close the case file.

DONE AND ORDERED this 16th day of February, 2021.

T. Kent Wetherell, II 

T. KENT WETHERELL, II

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:20-cv-05930-TKW-HTC Document 6 Filed 02/16/21 Page 1 of 1
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-19-00155-CV

IN RE WOODBINE PRODUCTION CORP., LOIN ENERGY CORP., 

ACTIVA RESOURCES, LLC, FIVE STATES ENERGY CAPITAL 

FUND I, LLC, LARRY T. LONG, THE LONG TRUSTS, AND

LONG PROPERTIES TRUST

Original Proceeding

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relators’ Petition for Writ of Mandamus, filed on May 3, 2019, is denied. The 

Court’s stay, issued on May 17, 2019, is lifted.

TOM GRAY

Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Neill, and

Justice Scoggins1

Petition denied

Stay lifted

Opinion delivered and filed July 10, 2019

[OT06]

 

1 The Honorable Al Scoggins, Senior Justice of the Tenth Court of Appeals, sitting by assignment of the 

Chief Justice of the Texas Supreme Court. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. §§ 74.003, 75.002, 75.003.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                           5
<LEGEND>

This schedule  contains  summary  financial  information  extracted from Angeles
Income  Properties,  LTD. IV 2000 Second  Quarter 10-QSB and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such 10-QSB filing.

</LEGEND>

<CIK>                               0000763049
<NAME>                              Angeles Income Properties, LTD. IV
<MULTIPLIER>                                           1,000


<S>                                   <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                       6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                   DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                      APR-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                        JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                                   427
<SECURITIES>                                               0
<RECEIVABLES>                                            351
<ALLOWANCES>                                               0
<INVENTORY>                                                0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                           0 <F1>
<PP&E>                                                20,527
<DEPRECIATION>                                        12,876
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                         9,574
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                      0 <F1>
<BONDS>                                               14,749
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                      0
<PREFERRED>                                                0
<COMMON>                                                   0
<OTHER-SE>                                            (5,656)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                           9,574
<SALES>                                                    0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                       1,783
<CGS>                                                      0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                              0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                       2,186
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                           0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                       726
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                            0
<INCOME-TAX>                                               0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                        0
<DISCONTINUED>                                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                            0
<CHANGES>                                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                                            (403)
<EPS-BASIC>                                            (3.00)<F2>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                              0
<FN>

<F1> Registrant has an unclassified balance sheet. <F2> Multiplier is 1.

</FN>


</TABLE>
# Subpart 609.2—Qualifications Requirements

**Parent topic:**PART 609—CONTRACTOR QUALIFICATIONS

## 609.202 Policy.

The authority prescribed in FAR 9.202(a)(1) is delegated, without power of redelegation, to the head of the contracting activity. 

## 609.206 Acquisitions subject to qualification requirements.

## 609.206-1 General.

(b) The authority prescribed in FAR 9.206–1(b) is delegated, without power of redelegation, to the head of the contracting activity.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

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

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

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RICHARD GARY HALL,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

D. LEVORSE; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 10-17074

D.C. No. 5:07-cv-03233-RMW

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Ronald M. Whyte, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted July 24, 2013** 

Before: ALARCÓN, CLIFTON, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Richard Gary Hall appeals pro se from the district

court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging Eighth and

Fourteenth Amendment violations in connection with his housing assignment. We

have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Lacey v. Maricopa

FILED

AUG 02 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 10-17074

County, 693 F.3d 896, 911 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Hall’s action as time-barred because

Hall filed his action after the applicable statute of limitations and statutory tolling

period had expired. See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §§ 335.1, 352.1(a) (setting forth

California’s statute of limitations for personal injury claims and the additional

tolling for prisoners); Pouncil v. Tilton, 704 F.3d 568, 573-74 (9th Cir. 2012)

(§ 1983 actions are governed by the forum state’s statute of limitations, but federal

law determines when a § 1983 claim accrues; under federal law, accrual occurs

when the plaintiff knows or has reason to know of the injury which is the basis of

the action). 

Contrary to Hall’s contentions, neither equitable tolling nor equitable

estoppel applies because Hall should have reasonably been aware of the existence

of his claims within the limitations period and defendants did not wrongfully

prevent Hall from asserting his claims. See Lukovsky v. City & County of San

Francisco, 535 F.3d 1044, 1051-52 (9th Cir. 2008) (discussing requirements for

equitable tolling and equitable estoppel).

The district court properly denied Hall’s motion to amend because the

deficiencies in his complaint could not be cured by amendment. See Lucas v.
3 10-17074

Dep’t of Corr., 66 F.3d 245, 248 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal of a pro se complaint

without leave to amend is proper if the deficiencies in the complaint cannot be

cured by amendment). 

The district court did not abuse its discretion by staying discovery pending

the resolution of defendants’ motion to dismiss because Hall did not show that he

suffered any prejudice. See Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002)

(setting forth standard of review and describing trial court’s broad discretion in

discovery matters which “will not be disturbed except upon the clearest showing

that denial of discovery results in actual and substantial prejudice to the

complaining litigant.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

AFFIRMED.
TECHNICAL DATA SHEET 

Typical Properties 

Solids 50% 

Moisture 50% 

pH 9-10 

Specific Gravity 1.282 

Pounds per Gallon 10.65 

Appearance Clear, Nearly Colorless Liquid

Odor Mild, Characteristic 

Water Miscibility Complete 

Freezing Point -72°F (-58°C) 

BOD (5-Day), g/g 0.25 

COD, g/g 0.35 

THE INFORMATION SET FORTH ON THIS DATA SHEET IS BELIEVED TO BE ACCURATE AS OF THE PRESENT 

DATE. SINCE THE ACTUAL USE BY OTHERS IS BEYOND OUR CONTROL, IT IS THE PURCHASER’S/USER’S 

RESPONSIBILITY TO DETERMINE THE SUITABILITY OF THE PRODUCT FOR THEIR OWN USE AND PURPOSE. 

NACHURS ALPINE SOLUTIONS MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES, EITHER EXPRESSED, 

IMPLIED OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. NACHURS ALPINE SOLUTIONS NEITHER ASSUMES 

RESPONSIBILITY REGARDING THE ACCURACY OR SUITABILITY OF SUCH INFORMATION OR PRODUCT FOR 

APPLICATION TO PURCHASER’S INTENDED USE OR PURPOSE NOR FOR THE CONSEQUENCES OF ITS USE. NO 

SUGGESTIONS FOR USE ARE INTENDED, AND NOTHING HEREIN SHALL BE CONSTRUED AS A 

RECOMMENDATION TO INFRINGE ANY EXISTING PATENTS OR TO VIOLATE ANY FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL 

LAWS, RULES OR REGULATIONS.

Rev 2/23/11
Case 2:06-cv-00766-MHT-TFM Document 20 Filed 03/08/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 2:06-cv-00766-MHT-TFM Document 20 Filed 03/08/2007 Page 2 of 2