alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
DELAY IN MOVING FOR. THE RETAXING OF COSTS.

Circuit Court of Cuyahoga County.

#### T. J. Kerns v. Augusta F. Linder et al.

Decided, March 28, 1905.

*Costs*— Bight *to Rave Retaxed Lost by Laches.*

A motion to have costs retaxed should be made within a reasonable time after the judgment awarding them, and one who has waited four years before making such a motion has been guilty of laches.

Winch, J.; Marvin, J., and Henry, J., concur.

This is a motion to retax costs awarded by the judgment of this court on November 7, 1901. The docket shows that after judgment by this court the ease went to the Supreme Court and was there dismissed.

While there is some merit in the contention that some part of the costs complained of were excessive and improperly charged against the defendant, Augusta F. Linder, we think this motion is altogether too late to be entertained by this court. Since said costs were taxed almost all the officials connected with the litigation, such as the clerk and sheriff, have gone out of office, and only one judge who sat in the case is now on the bench.

A motion to retax costs should be made within a reasonable time after the judgment awarding them, so that the court can call upon its officers to explain the items of the cost bill. The right to have costs retaxed may be lost by laches of the party against whom they are taxed. 11 Cyc., 165; 5 Enc. of Pl. & Pr., 248, and cases cited in notes.

This motion is made more than four years after the costs were taxed and entered on the dockets of the court, and we hold that defendant has waived his right to have the same retaxed and the motion is overruled.
Conceptual WRAP and Selected Existing EDMS ComparisonConceptualWRAP EDMSNationalEmissionsInventoryTribal EmissionsInventorySoftwareSolutionCalifornia AirResources BoardEmissionsInventoryColoradoDepartment ofHealth AirPollution InventoryDelawareEnvironmentalNavigatorData Tracking1Pollutants 9 7 7 5 5 5Sources 6 4 3 3 3 3Activity Data Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes YesEmissions Factors Yes Yes Yes No No NoTemporal Resolution Variable2Annual Annual Annual Annual AnnualSpatial ResolutionCounty /Reservation / PointCounty / PointReservation /PointCounty / Point County / Point County / PointStandard Submission Format Yes Yes No3Yes No4NoData QA/QC1Submission Format Check Yes Yes No3Yes No4NoContent Validation Yes Yes Yes Yes No4YesSubmission Completeness Yes Yes Yes Yes No4NoData Reporting1Standard Summary Reports Yes Yes Yes Yes YesYesRegional Haze Rule Specific ReportsYes No No No No NoData Exports Yes Yes Yes Minimal MinimalYesModel Ready Input File, i.e. SMOKE Yes No No No NoNoGIS Component1Multiple Display Tools Provided Yes No Yes No Yes YesAbility to Query Emissions Database andDisplay ResultsYes No Yes No Yes YesUser Access and Preferences1Publicly Accessible via Internet Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes1See Sections 3.1 and 3.3 for the description of the conceptual WRAP EDMS and the selected existing EDMS2Some emissions data will be submitted at the hourly, daily, seasonal, or annual levels. However, the reporting temporal resolution will be annual.3TEISS does not have one standard submission format. In fact TEISS accepts many formats.4This system is not the primary emission inventory system for Colorado. It is a secondary system included in this analysis because of its GIS capability.
AAM-12-171-E 

February 7, 2012 

 Exemption No. 10059A 

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2010-0396 

Mr. Jeff Veers 

Duffy’s Aircraft Sales and Leasing 

(d.b.a. Aviation on Demand, LLC) 

400 West 29th Street 

Marshfield, WI 54449 

Dear Mr. Veers: 

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your petition to extend Exemption 

No. 10059. It explains the basis for our decision and describes its effect. 

The Basis for Our Decision 

By letter dated January 13, 2012, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) 

on behalf of Duffy’s Aircraft Sales and Leasing (also d.b.a. Aviation on Demand, LLC) 

(Duffy’s Aircraft Sales and Leasing) for an extension of Exemption No. 10059, as amended. 

That exemption from part 120 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations allows Duffy’s 

Aircraft Sales and Leasing, which is operating under separate parts of the regulations, to 

cover its safety-sensitive employees under one testing program. 

In your petition, you indicate that there has been no change in the conditions and reasons 

relative to public interest and safety that were the basis for granting the original exemption. 

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition 

in the Federal Register because the requested extension of the exemption would not set a 

precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Duffy’s Aircraft 

Sales and Leasing. 
 2

Our Decision 

The FAA has determined that the justification for the issuance of Exemption No. 10059 

remains valid with respect to this exemption and is in the public interest. Therefore, under the 

authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator has 

delegated to me, I grant your petition, subject to the following conditions and limitations. 

Conditions and Limitations 

1. Employees of Duffy’s Aircraft Sales and Leasing are subject to the drug and alcohol 

regulations at all times while conducting operations under part 135 or part 91. 

 2. The drug and alcohol testing program must be implemented under the auspices of the 

Duffy’s Aircraft Sales and Leasing part 135 operation, not under part 91. 

The Effect of Our Decision 

Our decision extends the termination date of Exemption No. 10059, as amended, to 

May 31, 2014, unless sooner superseded or rescinded. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

James R. Fraser, M.D. 

Deputy Federal Air Surgeon
IV

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 127

Expressing the sense of the Congress that Canada should join the United

States in promoting economic growth and job creation by eliminating

tolls along the St. Lawrence Seaway, and in maximizing the free movement of goods and commerce through the St. Lawrence Seaway.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

DECEMBER 22, 1995

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania submitted the following concurrent resolution;

which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to the Committee on International Relations, for a

period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for

consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the Congress that Canada should

join the United States in promoting economic growth

and job creation by eliminating tolls along the St. Lawrence Seaway, and in maximizing the free movement

of goods and commerce through the St. Lawrence

Seaway.

Whereas the Great Lakes region accounts for two-thirds of

Canada’s industrial production and for 40 percent of all

manufacturing in the United States;
2

•HCON 127 IH

Whereas the St. Lawrence Seaway is a vital link between the

communities in the Great Lakes region and important export markets, principally the European Union;

Whereas an antiquated toll system has restricted the amount

of tonnage shipped in the St. Lawrence Seaway in recent

decades;

Whereas, in 1987 the United States began to rebate the tolls

it collected, and in 1994 entirely eliminated the collection

of tolls along the St. Lawrence Seaway;

Whereas, in 1993 Canada froze its toll rates along the St.

Lawrence Seaway; and

Whereas many recent studies have concluded that the complete elimination of fees throughout the St. Lawrence

Seaway would boost the regional economy: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That it is the sense of the Congress that the

3 Government of Canada should—

4 (1) eliminate its tolls along the St. Lawrence

5 Seaway; and

6 (2) join with the United States to identify ways

7 to maximize the movement of goods and commerce

8 through the St. Lawrence Seaway.

Æ
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Homeland Security

###### Federal Emergency Management Agency

          - [Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-1812-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2008-0018]

# AGENCY:

Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of New Hampshire (FEMA-1812-DR), dated January 2, 2009, and related determinations.

# DATES:

*Effective Date:*                         December 23, 2008.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Peggy Miller, Disaster Assistance Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3886.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Notice is hereby given that the incident period for this disaster is closed effective December 23, 2008.

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households in Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.)

Nancy Ward,

Acting Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

[FR Doc. E9-1882 Filed 1-28-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 71 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 71

Providing a sense of the Congress that the concurrent resolution on the 
 budget for fiscal year 1996 should reach a balanced Federal budget by 
 fiscal year 2001 through expenditure reductions and not tax increases.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 23, 1995

 Mr. Pickett submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was 
                referred to the Committee on the Budget

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
Providing a sense of the Congress that the concurrent resolution on the 
 budget for fiscal year 1996 should reach a balanced Federal budget by 
 fiscal year 2001 through expenditure reductions and not tax increases.
    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That it is the sense of the Congress that the concurrent resolution on 
the budget for fiscal year 1996 should reach a balanced Federal budget 
by fiscal year 2001 through expenditure reductions without tax 
increases by providing that annual Federal budget deficits may not 
exceed the following amounts:
            (1) $175 billion in fiscal year 1996.
            (2) $140 billion in fiscal year 1997.
            (3) $105 billion in fiscal year 1998.
            (4) $70 billion in fiscal year 1999.
            (5) $35 billion in fiscal year 2000.
            (6) $0 billion in fiscal year 2001.
                                 <all>
```
#### Lerner Shops of Connecticut, Inc., et al. *v.*Town of Waterbury

*Fred B. Rosnick,*for appellees-appellants (plaintiffs).

*Harry F. Spellman,*assistant corporation counsel, with whom was *John D. Mahaney,*corporation counsel, for appellant-appellee (defendant).

Argued May 7

decided July 25, 1963

The motion by the plaintiffs for correction of the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas in the Judicial District of Waterbury is denied. See the opinion rendered on the appeal. *Lerner Shops of Connecticut, Inc.*v. *Waterbury,*151 Conn. 79, 193 A.2d 472.
# o V( 5

U.S . Departmen t :...' ; t: ; V i/J^j; ! 80 0 IndependenceAve S.W . o f Transportatio n Washington . D.C . 2059 1 Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n VI A REGULA RMAI L 

### NO V 0 6 200 9 PaulettaJ . Brown , Esq . MORRIS , NICHOLS , ARSH T & TUNNELL , LL P 1201N . Marke t

Stree t P.O . Bo x 134 7 Wilmington , Delawar e 19899-134 7 Josep hMichae l Lamonaca , Esq . Ne w Castl e County Airpor t P.O . Bo x 1058 3 Wilmington , Delawar e 19850-058 3 RE : Aer o Way s v . Delawar e Rive r & Bay Authority ~ FA A Docke t No . 16-09-1 2 Reques t fo r Extensio n o f

Tim e Dea r Ms . Brow n an dMr . Lamonaca : Vi aamotio ndate dOctobe r 30 , 2009 , counse l for

th e Delawar e Rive r

& Bay Authority , requeste da n extensio no f

tim e unti l January 13 , 201 0 t o file th e Authority' s Answe r i nth e above-reference d matter . I nth e motion , th e Authority' s counse l informe dFA A tha t counse l for

Aer o Way s consente d t o th e 6 0 day extensio n o f time . Accordingly , th e reques t

for a n extensio ni s granted . Th e respondent' s Answe r i s no w du e o n Wednesday Januar y 13 , 2010 . Complainan t Aer o Way s ma y fil e aRepl y withi nte nday s o f th e dat e o f servic e o f

th e Answer . Sincerely , ElizabethNewma n Attorney , Airport s La w Branc h cc : Part 1 6 Airport

Proceeding s Docke t ACO-lO O
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-6992

DAVID ROSS WHITLOW,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

HAROLD CLARKE, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Alexandria. Anthony John Trenga, District Judge. (1:16-cv-01418-AJT-MSN)

Submitted: January 25, 2018 Decided: February 12, 2018

Before TRAXLER, KING, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jonathan P. Sheldon, SHELDON, FLOOD & HAYWOOD, PLC, Fairfax, Virginia, for 

Appellant. Eugene Paul Murphy, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF 

VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

David Ross Whitlow seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as 

untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a 

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial 

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When 

the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by 

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the 

constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). When the district court 

denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the 

dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of 

the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Whitlow has not 

made the requisite showing. 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 this court and argument 

would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
§ 25.2516-1 Certain property settlements. ( a ) Section 2516 provides that transfers of property or interests in property made under the terms of a written agreement between spouses in settlement of their marital or property rights are deemed to be for an adequate and full consideration in money or money's worth and, therefore, exempt from the gift tax (whether or not such agreement is approved by a divorce decree), if the spouses obtain a final decree of divorce from each other within two years after entering into the agreement.
( b ) See paragraph (b) of § 25.6019-3 for the circumstances under which information relating to property settlements must be disclosed on the transferor's gift tax return for the “calendar period” (as defined in § 25.2502-1(c)(1)) in which the agreement becomes effective.
[T.D. 6334, 23 FR 8904, Nov. 15, 1958, as amended by T.D. 7238, 37 FR 28732, Dec. 29, 1972; T.D. 7910, 48 FR 40375, Sept. 7, 1983]
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _

Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A1 6 A2 01 6

. ESTES PARK, L.P. v

. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATI ON.

On M ay 1 7

, 2 01 6

, t h i s C o u rt g ran t ed Es t es Park

, L.P.’ s ap p l i cat i o n fo r

i n t erl o cu t o ry ap p eal in t h i s co n d em n at i o n cas e. In J u l y 2 0 16

, Es t es Park

, L.P. (“ Es t es

Park ”) fi l ed an em e r g en cy m o t i o n fo r s u p ers ed eas

. In res p o n se, t h e Dep art m en t o f

Tr a n s p o rt at i o n (“ DOT”) ex p l ai n ed t h at

, al t ho u g h i t d i sag reed wi t h E s t es Park ’ s

as s ert i o n t h at th e s u b

ject p ro p ert y i s p u bl i c p ro p ert y

, o u t o f an ab u n d an ce of cau t i o n,

i t n o n et h el es s fi led an ap p l i cat io n w i t h t h e St at e Co m m i s s i o n on t h e Co n dem n at i o n

o f Pu b l i c Pro p ert y (t h e “ Co m m is s i o n ”). Fu rt h erm ore, t h e D OT ag reed to refrai n fro m

co n du ct in g an y act i v i t y o n t h e Es t es Park pro p ert y u n l es s an d u nt i l t h e Co m m i s s i o n

ap p ro v es t h e co nd em

n at i on

. Bas ed o n th i s rep res en t at i o n

, t h i s Co u rt den i ed Es t es

Park ’ s m o t io n fo r em erg en cy rel i ef.

Aft er carefu l co n si d erat i o n an d rev i ew, w e co n cl u d e t hat th e ap p l i cat i o n fo r

i n t erl o cu t o ry

ap p eal was i m

p ro v i d en t l y gran t ed

, an d i t i s o rd ered t h at t h is ap p eal i s

h ereb y DISM ISSED. It i s n o t ed t h at t h e den i al o f i n t erl o cu t o r y rev i ew do es n ot

co n st i t u t e an ad

ju d i cat i o n o n t h e m eri t s

. H o l mes v. A c h o r C t r

. , 2 4 9 Ga. Ap p

. 1 8 4,

1 8 7 (1 ) (5 4 7 SE2 d 33 2 ) (2 0 0 1 ). A cco rd i n gl y

, t o t h e ex t en t t he i s s u es ri p e fo r

ap p el l at e co n si d e r a t i o n b y t hi s Co u rt are n o t m oo t ed by th e fi n di n g s o f t h e

Co m m i s s i o n

, Es tes Park i s n o t p recl u d ed fro m fu rt h er ap pel l at e rev i ew o f t h i s cas e. February 16, 2017C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia

C le r k ’ s O f f i c e

, A t la n t a

,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r t i f y t h a t t h e a b o v e i s a tr u e e x t r a c t f r o m

t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

.

W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d t h e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t

h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. 02/16/2017
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                       2,510,557
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,341,075
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             7,438,505
<PP&E>                                       2,030,993
<DEPRECIATION>                                 851,935
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,676,853
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,212,772
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        12,072
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,433,139
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,676,853
<SALES>                                     11,510,210
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            11,510,210
<CGS>                                        6,950,924
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                6,950,924
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,681,414
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,877,872
<INCOME-TAX>                                   694,803
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,183,069
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,183,069
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.10
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.10



</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 21

- 0232 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. SEAN MCKELVEY CALAHAN ,

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including January 30, 2023, within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal. No further extensions of time will be granted.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

December 21 2022

12/21/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0232
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Wayne PORTER, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 01-8053.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted June 10, 2002.

Decided June 24, 2002.

Wayne Porter, Appellant Pro Se. Kenneth Davis Bell, Office of the United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before WILLIAMS and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Wayne Porter seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2001). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal substantially on the reasoning of the district court. *See United States v. Porter,*Nos. CR-85-62; CA-01-577 (W.D.N.C. filed Oct. 24, 2002; entered Oct. 25, 2002). In addition, we find that Porter’s claims do not fall within § 2255’s savings clause. Thus, we decline Porter’s invitation to construe his claim under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994). *See In re Jones,*226 F.3d 328, 334-35 (4th Cir.2000) (providing standard for seeking relief under § 2241 based on the inadequacy of § 2255). 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.*