alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

01-10466

Summary Calendar

__________________

DONALD CARTER, JR; DONALD ARTIS

Plaintiffs - Appellants

v.

AURELIO CASTILLO, Constable and Individually and

in his Official Capacity, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS

Defendants 

 DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS

 Defendant-Appellee

______________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

3:99-CV-47-X

______________________________________________

December 14, 2001

Before DAVIS, BENAVIDES and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Donald Carter, Jr. and Donald Artis, Deputy Constables in

Dallas County, Texas, brought suit in the district court alleging

(1) racial discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII
2

of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; (2) retaliation in violation of

their First Amendment rights; (3) violation of the Texas

Whistleblower Act; and (4) a state law claim of intentional

infliction of emotional distress. In a well-reasoned and thorough

opinion, the district court granted summary judgment disposing of

all claims against the defendant-appellee, Constable Aurelio

Castillo and defendant-appellee Dallas County, Texas. Since filing

their appeal, the appellants have dismissed their appeal against

Constable Castillo and their appeal now concerns only Dallas

County, Texas.

Appellants’ brief is indeed brief and sparse. Even when

liberally construed, it complains only of the district court

rulings on their Title VII racial discrimination claims. All other

claims are not briefed and therefore not properly before us for

review. With respect to the Title VII discrimination claims, we

find no error in the district court rulings. We affirm for the

reasons set out in the Memorandum Opinion and Order of the district

court dated February 7, 2001.

AFFIRMED
October 27, 2015

Mr. Jonathan Mill

403 West 7th St reet , #302

Long Beach, CA 90813

Dear Mr. Mill :

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your petition for an exemption from

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we can not process your

request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can n o t Process Your Request

We received your exemption request posted to the docket on July 29, 2015

, filed in D ocket

No

. FAA− 20 15

− 3260 , but we are unable to process your request any further. Your petition

does no t 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 from 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.

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

For more detailed information relating to submitting petitions for exemption, please visit

http://aes.faa.gov/petition/index.html . This website helps the petition er to meet Federal

Aviation A dministration (FAA) requirement outlines in § 11.81 and helps answer any

questions you may have.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must submit the requested information

within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires 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 receive the information, we will c lose the docket without notifying you further.

If you have any questions you may call the 333 Information Line (202) 267

- 2999.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brittany Newton

Program Analyst, Airmen and

Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure s34
# L_2019296DE.01006301.xml

| 15.11.2019 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | L 296/63 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.11.2019

DE

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union

L 296/63

---

Berichtigung der Richtlinie (EU) 2019/789 des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates vom 17. April 2019 mit Vorschriften für die Ausübung von Urheberrechten und verwandten Schutzrechten in Bezug auf bestimmte Online-Übertragungen von Sendeunternehmen und die Weiterverbreitung von Fernseh- und Hörfunkprogrammen und zur Änderung der Richtlinie 93/83/EWG des Rates

(Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 130 vom 17. Mai 2019)

Auf Seite 89 Artikel 5 Absatz 2

Anstatt:

„(2)   Die Mitgliedstaaten bestimmen, dass Verhandlungen über die Erlaubnis der Weiterverbreitung gemäß dieser Richtlinie zwischen Sendeunternehmen und Betreibern von Weiterverbreitungsdiensten nach Treu und Glauben geführt werden.“

muss es heißen:

„(2)   Die Mitgliedstaaten bestimmen, dass, wenn Verhandlungen über die Erlaubnis der Weiterverbreitung gemäß dieser Richtlinie zwischen Sendeunternehmen und Betreibern von Weiterverbreitungsdiensten geführt werden, diese nach Treu und Glauben zu führen sind.“

---
<PAGE>   1

                                                                      EXHIBIT 21



               SUBSIDIARIES OF CYBEX COMPUTER PRODUCTS CORPORATION


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
         NAME OF SUBSIDIARY                                                STATE OR COUNTRY OF ORGANIZATION
         --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

         <S>                                                               <C>
         Cybex Computer Products International, Ltd.                                    Ireland

         Cybex International Corporation                                                Barbados

         Cybex Computertechnik, GmbH                                                    Germany

         Elsner Computertechnik, GmbH                                                   Germany

         PolyCon Data Systems, GmbH                                                     Germany

         PolyCon Investments, Inc., d/b/a Cybex Employment Services Co.                  Texas
</TABLE>



                                       70
38823.

#### ZURICH INSURANCE COMPANY *et al.*v. PANTER.

Carlisle, Presiding Judge.

The claimant in this workmen’s compensation case, a man 55 years of age, working as a carpenter building concrete forms, received an accidental injury to his back consisting of a compression fracture of the twelfth thoracic vertebra. He was disabled, hospitalized, received medical treatment and was paid compensation in accordance *756with the Workmen’s Compensation Act from the: date, of the injury (August 6, 1959). On December 28, 1959, he returned to light, selective work. . Compensation based on reduced earnings was paid from that date until the date of the hearing, pursuant to a supplemental agreement entered into between the claimant and the employer. After February 3, 1960, claimant discontinued the work and applied to the State Board of Workmen’s Compensation for a hearing, contending that he was permanently and totally disabled. On the hearing he testified that he was not able to do the work offered by the employer or any work in the only 'occupation for which he was trained, that is, carpentry. The company’s medical witness testified that in his opinion the claimant was 100 percent disabled from performing carpentry work which required any activity other than sitting down. There was no evidence introduced that the claimant had. been offered a purely sedentary job, and, therefore, there was no evidence that he had refused to accept employment which he was physically able to perform. The evidence amply authorized the award of compensation made by the deputy director, the full board did not err in making that award its award,‘and the judge of the superior court did not err in affirming the full board. *Continental Cas. Co. v. Bennett,*69 Ga. App. 683 (26 S. E. 2d 682); *Bussey v. Globe Indem. Co.,*81 Ga. App. 401, 404 (1) (59 S. E. 2d 34); *Travelers Ins. Co. v. Wofford,*81 Ga. App. 421 (1) (58 S. E. 2d 853).

Decided May 4, 1961

Rehearing denied May 31, 1961.

*Woodruff, Latimer, Savell, Lane & Williams, John M. Williams,*for plaintiffs in error.

*George A. Haas,*contra.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Nichols and. Eberhardt, JJ., concur.*
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 55 Reported in House (RH)]

<DOC>

                                                   House Calendar No. 5
115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 55

                           [Report No. 115-5]

 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 7) to prohibit taxpayer 
                           funded abortions.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 23, 2017

    Ms. Cheney, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following 
resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 7) to prohibit taxpayer 
                           funded abortions.

    Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 7) to prohibit taxpayer 
funded abortions. All points of order against consideration of the bill 
are waived. The bill shall be considered as read. All points of order 
against provisions in the bill are waived. The previous question shall 
be considered as ordered on the bill and on any amendment thereto to 
final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate 
equally divided and controlled by the Majority Leader and the Minority 
Leader or their respective designees; and (2) one motion to recommit.
                                                   House Calendar No. 5

115th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. RES. 55

                           [Report No. 115-5]

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 7) to prohibit taxpayer 
                           funded abortions.

_______________________________________________________________________

                            January 23, 2017

        Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed
```
###### Editorial Note on Part 117

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 117 appear at 81 FR 49896, July 29, 2016.

#### § 117.425 Determining appropriate supplier verification activities (including determining the frequency of conducting the activity).

Appropriate supplier verification activities (including the frequency of conducting the activity) must be determined in accordance with the requirements of § 117.410(d).
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 4 (Thursday, January 6, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 708-709]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-33357]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service

26 CFR Parts 1, 31, 40, and 301

[TD 9507]
RIN 1545-BJ13


Electronic Funds Transfer of Depository Taxes; Correction

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

ACTION: Correction to final and temporary regulations.

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

SUMMARY: This document contains corrections to final and temporary 
regulations (TD 9507) that were published in the Federal Register on 
Tuesday, December 7, 2010 (75 FR 75897) providing guidance relating to 
Federal tax deposits (FTDs) by Electronic Funds Transfer (EFT). The 
temporary and final regulations provide rules under which depositors 
must use

[[Page 709]]

EFT for all FTDs and eliminate the rules regarding FTD coupons.

DATES: Effective January 6, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Hara, (202) 622-4910 (not a 
toll free number).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The final and temporary regulations (TD 9507) that are the subject 
of these corrections are under section 6302 of the Internal Revenue 
Code.

Need for Correction

    As published, the final and temporary regulations (TD 9507) contain 
errors that may prove to be misleading and are in need of 
clarification.

Correction of Publication

    Accordingly, the final and temporary regulations (TD 9507), that 
are the subject of FR Doc. 2010-30526, are corrected as follows:
    1. On page 75898, in the preamble, column 3, under the paragraph 
heading ``9. Business Days and Legal Holidays'', line 8 from the bottom 
of the page, the language ``section 7503, the term ``legal holiday'''' 
is corrected to read ``section 7503, the term legal holiday''.
    2. On page 75899, in the preamble, column 1, line 19 from the top 
of the page, the language ``transitional relief. Notice 2010- states'' 
is corrected to read ``transitional relief. Notice 2010-87 states''.

Guy Traynor,
Federal Register Liaison, Publications and Regulations Branch, Legal 
Processing Division, Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure and 
Administration).
[FR Doc. 2010-33357 Filed 1-5-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
IV 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 703 

Designating the week of January 21 through January 27, 2018, as ‘‘National 

School Choice Week’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 18, 2018 

Mr. BIGGS submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on Education and the Workforce 

RESOLUTION 

Designating the week of January 21 through January 27, 

2018, as ‘‘National School Choice Week’’. 

Whereas providing a diversity of choices in elementary school 

and secondary school education empowers parents to select education environments that meet the individual 

needs and strengths of their children; 

Whereas high-quality elementary school and secondary school 

education environments of all varieties are available in 

the United States, including traditional public schools, 

public charter schools, public magnet schools, private 

schools, online academies, and home schooling; 

Whereas talented teachers and school leaders in each of the 

education environments prepare children to achieve their 

dreams; 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 703 IH 

Whereas more families than ever before in the United States 

actively choose the best education for their children; 

Whereas more public awareness of the issue of parental 

choice in education can inform additional families of the 

benefits of proactively choosing challenging, motivating, 

and effective education environments for their children; 

Whereas the process by which parents choose schools for 

their children is nonpolitical, nonpartisan, and deserves 

the utmost respect; and 

Whereas hundreds of organizations, thousands of schools, and 

millions of individuals in the United States celebrate the 

benefits of educational choice during the 8th annual ‘‘National School Choice Week’’, held the week of January 21 

through January 27, 2018: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) supports the designation of ‘‘National 

3 School Choice Week’’; 

4 (2) congratulates students, parents, teachers, 

5 and school leaders from elementary school and sec6 ondary school education environments of all varieties 

7 for their persistence, achievements, dedication, con8 tributions to society in the United States; 

9 (3) encourages all parents, during ‘‘National 

10 School Choice Week’’, to learn more about the edu11 cation options available to them; and 

12 (4) encourages the people of the United States 

13 to hold appropriate programs, events, and activities 

14 during ‘‘National School Choice Week’’ to raise pubVerDate Sep 11 2014 01:52 Jan 19, 2018 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\HR703.IH HR703

lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HRES 703 IH 

1 lic awareness of the benefits of opportunity in edu2 cation. 

Æ 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
Final PSD Permit Decision and 

Related Documents (Posted

September 30, 2016)

Final PSD Permit Decision for 

the MCU Facility
<PAGE>   1


                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2

[KPMG LETTERHEAD]




The Board of Directors
Intrawest Corporation



We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on 
Form S-8 of Intrawest Corporation pertaining to the Intrawest Corporation 
Stock Option Plan of our report dated September 10, 1998 relating to 
the consolidated balance sheet of Intrawest Corporation as at June 30, 1998 and 
the consolidated statements of operations, retained earnings, cash flow from 
operations, and changes in financial position for the year then ended, which 
report appears in the annual report on Form 40-F of Intrawest Corporation for 
the fiscal year ended June 30, 1998.

/s/ KPMG LLP
---------------------------------
Independent Chartered Accountants

Vancouver, Canada
October 29, 1998
## In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

___________________________

No. 02

- 23

- 00191

- CR

___________________________

On Appeal from Criminal District Court No. 1

Tarrant County, Texas

Trial Court No. 1780450

Before Womack, Wallach, and Walker, JJ.

Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion 

### C OREY 

### M ONTE 

### R ICHARDSON



### , Appellant

V



### .

T HE 

### S TATE OF 

### T EXAS2 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT

Appellant has moved to dismiss his appeal. Because we have not yet decided

this case, we grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.2(a),

43.2(f).

Per Curiam

Do Not Publish

Tex. R. App

. P. 47.2(b)

Delivered: August 3, 2023
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Swift Energy
Pension  Partners  1992-B,  Ltd.'s  balance  sheet and  statement of  operations
contained in its Form 10-Q for the quarter  ended June 30, 1999 and is qualified
in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                         153,565
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  94,690
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               261,383
<PP&E>                                         5,325,541
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (4,519,449)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 1,067,475
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          6,938
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     1,060,537
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   1,067,475
<SALES>                                        77,238
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               81,900
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  54,547<F1>
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (17,650)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (17,650)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (17,650)
<EPS-BASIC>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
<FN>
<F1>Includes  lease  operating  expenses,  production  taxes  and  depreciation,
depletion and  amortization  expense.  Excludes general and  administrative  and
interest expense.
</FN>



</TABLE>
#### Nolan v. Smythe.

No. 2

*A. Grant Walker,*for plaintiff.

*Hosbach & Good,*for defendant.

March 28, 1951.

Evans, P. J.,

— This matter is before us on a motion to strike off judgment entered *365against defendant by the prothonotary on August 3, 1950, at the order of attorney for plaintiff.

It is contended that the Ohio Casualty Insurance Company, surety for defendant, on appeal from an alderman’s judgment, has failed to properly qualify in accordance with the laws of Pennsylvania to act as surety, and that there does not appear of record a power of attorney to the person acting as attorney-in-fact for the Ohio Casualty Insurance Company. The records in the prothonotary’s office shows that the Ohio Casualty Insurance Company has qualified with the Insurance Commissioner of the State of Pennsylvania to act as surety, and a certificate to that effect is on file.

We therefore have for consideration only the second reason assigned for the entry of judgment.

The transcript on appeal shows a bond in the proper amount signed by defendant, J. M. Smythe, and the Ohio Casualty insurance Company, Carl F. Schmidt, attorney-in-fact. The corporate seal is attached.

There is not on record anything to indicate that Carl F. Schmidt is a duly appointed attorney-in-fact to act on behalf of his constituent, the Ohio'Casualty Insurance Company. It is true, as contended by plaintiff, that the bond is of no binding effect upon the surety company unless Carl F. Schmidt has authority to act on its behalf. Inasmuch as there is nothing of record to show this authority, plaintiff has the right to insist upon proof being furnished. He cannot presume a lack of authority and on his own initiative declare the execution by Carl F. Schmidt, on behalf of his constituent, void.

And now, to wit, March 28, 1951, the rule to show cause granted September 18, 1950, on defendant’s motion to strike off judgment entered against him by plaintiff on August 3, 1950, is made absolute.