alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>5
       
<S>                                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                       9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                  SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                          1,015,120
<SECURITIES>                                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                                           0
<ALLOWANCES>                                            0
<INVENTORY>                                             0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                        0
<PP&E>                                                  0
<DEPRECIATION>                                          0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  1,015,120
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                   0
<BONDS>                                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                             0
<COMMON>                                                0
<OTHER-SE>                                        947,552
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    1,015,120
<SALES>                                                 0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                1,583,391
<CGS>                                                   0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                           0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  324,388
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                      0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 1,259,003
<INCOME-TAX>                                            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             1,259,003
<DISCONTINUED>                                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0
<CHANGES>                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                    1,259,003
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                       10.83
<EPS-DILUTED>                                           0
        

</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Gregory Berkel, Appellant.

[803 NYS2d 444]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Chin-Brandt, J.), rendered July 1, 2004, convicting him of attempted burglary in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We have reviewed the record and agree with the defendant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted *(see Anders v California,*386 US 738 [1967]; *People v Paige,*54 AD2d 631 [1976]; *cf. People v Gonzalez,*47 NY2d 606 [1979]). H. Miller, J.P., Crane, Krausman, Rivera and Lifson, JJ., concur.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eric E. ALVAREZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 02-6276.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted May 7, 2002.

Decided June 19, 2002.

*661Eric E. Alvarez, Pro Se. Robert Edward Skiver, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before WILKINS and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Remanded by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Eric E. Alvarez appeals the district court’s denial of his motion filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2001) and his motion to reconsider. The notice of appeal in this case was received in the district court after expiration of the sixty day appeal period following the denial of Alvarez’s motion to reconsider. However, Alvarez dated his notice of appeal prior to the expiration of the appeal period. Under *Houston v. Lack,*487 U.S. 266, 276, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988), the notice of appeal is deemed filed on the date it was delivered to prison officials. Because the record as it stands does not indicate when Alvarez delivered his notice of appeal to prison officials for mailing, we cannot determine whether the notice of appeal is timely.

The record is similarly unclear as to the date Alvarez filed his motion to reconsider from the court’s order denying relief in his habeas motion. Under *Houston v. Lack,*the motion to reconsider is deemed filed as of the date the petitioner delivered it to prison officials for forwarding to the court. *See United States v. Duke,*50 F.3d 571, 575 (8th Cir.1995). Although Alvarez’s motion to reconsider was received by the district court clerk approximately one month after denial of his § 2255 motion, Alvarez alleges he delivered the motion to the proper prison officials on the tenth day following the district court’s decision. The date Alvarez delivered the motion to reconsider to prison officials must be ascertained by the district court as the timing of the filing of that motion determines whether it is properly considered under Fed R. Civ. P. 59(e) or Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b). *See In re Burnley,*988 F.2d 1 (4th Cir.1992). Accordingly, we remand the case for the district court to determine the timeliness of the filing of the notice of appeal under *Houston v. Lack.*In the event that the court concludes that Alvarez’s notice of appeal was timely filed, it must then determine whether Alvarez’s motion to reconsider was delivered to prison officials for mailing no later than the tenth day following the denial of Alvarez’s § 2255 motion. The record, as supplemented, will then be returned to this court for further consideration.

*REMANDED.*
#### § 25.2701-7 Separate interests.

The Secretary may, by regulation, revenue ruling, notice, or other document of general application, prescribe rules under which an applicable retained interest is treated as two or more separate interests for purposes of section 2701. In addition, the Commissioner may, by ruling issued to a taxpayer upon request, treat any applicable retained interest as two or more separate interests as may be necessary and appropriate to carry out the purposes of section 2701.

[T.D. 8395, 57 FR 4264, Feb. 4, 1992]
#### § 1010.917 Payment of expenses.

Persons summoned under this chapter shall be paid the same fees and mileage for travel in the United States that are paid witnesses in the courts of the United States. The United States shall not be liable for any other expense incurred in connection with the production of books, papers, records, or other data under this chapter.
Washington, DC - USA Consumer Specialty Products Association 

# Balancing Functionality with Efficacy Steven Bennett, Ph.D. Senior Director of Scientific Affairs and Sustainability July 29, 2014 Expert Public Workshop on Alternatives and Risk Reduction Approaches to Trichloroethylene (TCE) Use as a Degreaser

### Consumer Specialty Products Association 

### • Over 240 companies in the manufacture, formulation, distribution and sale of $100 billion 

### in product sales annually in the U.S. • Household, Industrial & Institutional members • Seven product divisions – Aerosol – Antimicrobial – Air Care – Cleaning Products – Industrial & Automotive – Pest Management – Polishes and Floor Maintenance Industrial

### Information Needs 1. CSPA supports more robust reporting of chemical uses under TSCA 2. EPA’s work plan goals – Identify potential consumer and worker exposures – Understand critical safety considerations 3. Information provided was intended to: – Ensure a more accurate understanding of uses – Assist EPA in refining their assessment – Identify appropriate stewardship activities – Clarify safety considerations (critical uses)

### Usage of TCE as a Degreaser • Limited use– Industrial 

### • Solvent degreaser – Large commercial/industrial settings – Small commercial settings, i.e., small shops 

### • Characteristics: Inflammability and effectiveness – Water-based alternatives; electrical hazards 

### – Flammable alternatives; fire/explosive hazards

### Stewardship Activities to Reduce Existing Exposure 

### • Restrict sales – Commercial/Industrial supply chains – Clearly and prominently labeled as “For Commercial Use Only” 

### • Specific “above and beyond” MSDS/SDS instructions – Comprehensive Hazard Identification – Use of Personal Protection Equipment – Air monitoring – Warnings to fire-fighters about decomposition products
CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS CAN NOT BE REVIEWED BY HABEAS CORPUS.

Court of Appeals for Hamilton County.

#### In re Application of Henry S. Rosenthal for Writ of Habeas Corpus.*

Decided, November 22, 1915.

*Contempt*— Where *Court Has Jurisdiction*— Proceedings *in Contempt Can Not he Reviewed by Habeas Corpus.*

Inasmuch as the Superior Court of Cincinnati had jurisdiction to try the case in which the petitioner herein was committed for contempt, its proceedings can not be reviewed by habeas corpus however irregular or erroneous they may have been.

*384*G. W. Balter,*for Rosenthal.

*Hosea <& Knight,*for Sheriff.

*

 Petition dismissed in the Supreme Court without opinion, at costs of Henry S. Rosenthal, February 15, 1916.

Per Curiam.

The Superior Court of Cincinnati has jurisdiction to punish for contempt of court by inherent right and under Sections 12136 and 12137 of the General Code. It had jurisdiction to try the cause on hearing in which Rosenthal was committed for contempt of court. Whether testimony in that cause was properly being heard on the 5th and 6th days of November when it had previously been continued until the 12th of November raises a question merely as to the regularity and correctness of the proceedings. No matter how irregular and erroneous its proceedings may have been, they can not be reviewed by habeas corpus. A writ of error is the appropriate remedy. A writ of habeas corpus can not be used to perform the office of a writ of error. *In re David Fusfield, David Ostend and Nathan Carl,*21 C.C.(N.S.), 62; *Ex parte Shaw,*7 O. S., 81; *Ex parte Van Hagen,*25 O. S., 426; *McGorray*v. *Sutter,*80 O. S., 400.

The court of common pleas was without jurisdiction to entertain the habeas corpus proceedings in this case, and its judgment must therefore be reversed.
Served: April 22, 2014

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

WASHINGTON, DC

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

WEST ISLE AIR, INC. -----------------------------------------------------------

NOTICE OF REGISTRATION OF TRADE NAME

On March 22, 2014, West Isle Air, Inc. (“West Isle”), a U.S. commuter air carrier,1 requested that 

the Department register the trade name “Chelan Seaplanes” for use in certain of its air transportation 

operations and deregister its previous trade name “San Juan Airlines.” 

In support of its request, West Isle states that on February 21, 2014, the air carrier had sold, among 

other assets, its trade name “San Juan Airlines” to Rugby Aviation, LLC (“Rugby”), a U.S 

commuter air carrier based in Northwest Washington.2 In addition, West Isle states that the Federal 

Aviation Administration has already removed the “San Juan Airlines” trade name in the air carrier’s 

Operations Specifications.

Part 215 (14 CFR Part 215) of the Department’s regulations provides that any air carrier wishing to 

use an alternative trade name must first register that name with the Department. The rule further 

states that the Department may register such name after the air carrier gives notification to similarly 

named air carriers of the proposed use of the name. In this case, the name “Chelan Seaplanes” is 

not currently being used by, nor is identical or similar to the name of, any other existing certificated, 

commuter, or foreign air carrier. 

Since West Isle has complied with the requirements of Part 215, we acknowledge the registration of 

the trade name “Chelan Seaplanes” for immediate use in its operations. We also deregister the trade 

name “San Juan Airlines.”

Dated at Washington, D.C., April 22, 2014.

TODD M. HOMAN

Director

Office of Aviation Analysis

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide Web at:

http://www.regulations.gov

 

1 See Order 1992-5-3, issued on May 18, 1992.

2 See Order 2010-4-4, issued on April 9, 2010. The Department consequently registered the trade name “San Juan 

Airlines” for use in Rugby’s operations (See Notice of Trade Name Registration for Rugby Aviation, LLC, dated March 

24, 2014) .
Attachment A 

SERVICE LIST FOR WEST ISLE AIR, INC.

 MR CLYDE CARLSON

 MR SHANE CARLSON

WEST ISLE AIR, INC.

 4000 AIRPORT ROAD, SUITE A

 ANACORTES WA 98221

OFFICE OF AIRLINE INFORMATION

DOT/RSPA/BTS E-36

1200 NEW JERSEY AVE SE

WASHINGTON DC 20590

 MR LOUIS A JANSEN 

 OWNER, RUGBY AVIATION, LLC 

 4167 MITCHELL WAY

 BELLINGHAM WA 98226

 

 

MR MARK MAZOR

CERTIFICATION MANAGER

FAA AFS-900

45005 AVIATION DRIVE SUITE 131

DULLES VA 20166

 MR CHIP PETERSON

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

 PRINCIPAL OPERATIONS INSPECTOR

SEATTLE WA 89511

MR PETER LYNCH 

ASST CHIEF COUNSEL FOR ENFORCEMENT 

FAA/AGC-300

800 INDEPENDENCE AVE SW

WASHINGTON DC 20591
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 152 / Monday, August 10, 2009 / Notices 39935 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Office of the Secretary 

[Transmittal Nos. 09–31] 

36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification 

AGENCY: Department of Defense, Defense 

Security Cooperation Agency. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Defense is 

publishing the unclassified text of a 

section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. 

This is published to fulfill the 

requirements of section 155 of Public 

Law 104–164 dated 21 July 1996. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

B. English, DSCA/DBO/CFM, (703) 601– 

3740. 

The following is a copy of a letter to 

the Speaker of the House of 

Representatives, Transmittals 09–31 

with attached transmittal and policy 

justification. 

Dated: July 17, 2009. 

Patricia L. Toppings, 

OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, 

Department of Defense. 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–M 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with NOTICESEN10AU09.000</GPH>
39936 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 152 / Monday, August 10, 2009 / Notices 

[FR Doc. E9–18956 Filed 8–7–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–C 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with NOTICESEN10AU09.001</GPH>
(Superior Court of Cincinnati.)

Special Term.

#### RALPH E. WATSON v. GEORGE G. BROWN et al.

*Pleading*— Partnership *Bill constitutes one cause of action.*

Dempsey, J.

The petition does separately state and number two causes o.f action, but defendant contends that the first cause of action as set out is-in realitv two causes of action and should be-stated and numbered as such. But this is not so. The first count in the petition is, in reality what is known as a partnership bill — an equitable remedy whereby, either before or after dissolution, a partner may procure protection of the partnership property, an account, and a distribution of its assets. These forms of *331relief are just what plaintiff seeks in his count.

A. W. Goldsmith for motion; John Weld, contra.

The making of the Casualty Company a party to this count and asking an injunction against it does not alter the case any, as the injunction here is but incidental to the main relief, and in line with the main object of the action, viz., the distribution of the alleged partnership assets.

Motion overruled.
#### Patricia Curto, Appellant, v Zittel's Dairy Farm et al., Respondents.

(Appeal No. 1.)

[803 NYS2d 463]

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Donna M. Siwek, J.), dated January 3, 2005. The order, inter alia, granted the motions of defendants Zittel’s Dairy Farm, John Zittel, Sandra Zit-tel and Thomas Dexter seeking leave to serve an amended answer and to strike the note of issue and certificate of readiness.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: We conclude in appeal No. 1 that Supreme Court properly exercised its discretion in granting the motion of Zittel’s Dairy Farm, John Zittel, Sandy Zittel and Thomas Dexter (defendants) seeking leave to serve an amended answer based upon their inadvertent failure to deny plaintiffs allegations that Thomas Dexter and defendant Jeffrey Gasper are the alter egos of Zittel’s Dairy Farm, John Zittel and Sandy Zittel *(see Sidor v Zuhoski,*257 AD2d 564, 565 [1999]). We further *1056conclude in appeal No. 1 that the court properly granted defendants’ motion to strike the note of issue and certificate of readiness. Defendants timely sought that relief within 20 days after service of the note of issue and certificate of readiness and provided an affirmation showing that discovery was incomplete *(see Aviles v 938 SCY Ltd.,*283 AD2d 935, 936 [2001]).

We conclude in appeal No. 2 that the court properly denied that part of plaintiff’s motion seeking a stay of a prior order denying in part plaintiff’s prior motion for partial summary judgment *(see Peerce v Peerce,*97 AD2d 718, 719 [1983]). Finally, we further conclude in appeal No. 2 that the court properly denied that part of plaintiff’s motion seeking a temporary restraining order *(see generally*CPLR 6301). Present—Pigott, Jr., P.J., Green, Kehoe, Martoche and Pine, JJ.
#### Leopold Siao-Pao, Appellant, v Brion D. Travis, as Chairman of the New York State Board of Parole, Respondent.

[804 NYS2d 724]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Marcy S. Friedman, J.), entered August 12, 2004, which, in a declaratory judgment action involving whether defendant Parole Board violated plaintiff prisoner’s constitutional rights to equal protection, granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the action for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, without prejudice, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The complaint, which alleges that defendant gives preferential treatment to parole candidates based on race, sex, financial security or social advantage, was properly dismissed without prejudice to plaintiff’s seeking appropriate relief after he exhausts his administrative remedies. Couching an adverse administrative decision in terms of a constitutional violation will not excuse a litigant from pursuing administrative remedies *243that can provide the requested substantive relief, here parole, where resolution of the constitutional claim, here unequal protection, rests on factual issues that are reviewable administratively *(Matter of Schulz v State of New York,*86 NY2d 225, 232 [1995], *cert denied*516 US 944 [1995]; *see Johnson v Markman,*288 AD2d 165 [2001]; *Matter of Hakeem v Wong,*223 AD2d 765 [1996], *lv denied*88 NY2d 802 [1996]). Concur—Saxe, J.P., Marlow, Nardelli, Gonzalez and Sweeny, JJ.
#### § 1010.715 Issuing rulings.

The Director, FinCEN, or his designee may issue a written ruling interpreting the relationship between this chapter and each situation for which such a ruling has been requested in conformity with § 1010.711. A ruling issued under this section shall bind FinCEN only in the event that the request describes a specifically identified actual situation. A ruling issued under this section shall have precedential value, and hence may be relied upon by others similarly situated, only if FinCEN makes it available to the public through publication on the FinCEN Web site under the heading “Administrative rulings” or other appropriate forum. All rulings with precedential value will be available by mail to any person upon written request specifically identifying the ruling sought. FinCEN will make every effort to respond to each requestor within 90 days of receiving a request.

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 1506-0050)

[75 FR 65812, Oct. 26, 2010, as amended at 81 FR 76864, Nov. 4, 2016]
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 155 (Thursday, August 13, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 40829]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-19398]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2009-0654]


Certificate of Alternative Compliance for the Offshore Supply 
Vessel HOS SILVER ARROW

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard announces that a Certificate of Alternative 
Compliance was issued for the offshore supply vessel HOS SILVER ARROW 
as required by 33 U.S.C. 1605(c) and 33 CFR 81.18.

DATES: The Certificate of Alternative Compliance was issued on July 2, 
2009.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this notice is available for inspection or 
copying at the Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of 
Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New 
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., 
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. You may also find this 
docket on the Internet by going to http://www.regulations.gov, 
inserting USCG-2009-0654 in the ``Keyword'' box, and then clicking 
``Search.''

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this notice, 
call CWO2 David Mauldin, District Eight, Prevention Branch, U.S. Coast 
Guard, telephone 504-671-2153. If you have questions on viewing or 
submitting material to the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program 
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background and Purpose

    The offshore supply vessel HOS SILVER ARROW will be used for 
offshore supply operations. The Certificate of Alternative Compliance 
allows for the horizontal distance between the forward and aft masthead 
lights to be 21' 11''. Placing the aft masthead light at the horizontal 
distance from the forward masthead light as required by Annex I, 
paragraph 3(a) of the 72 COLREGS, and Annex I, Section 84.05(a) of the 
Inland Rules Act, would result in an aft masthead light location 
directly over the cargo deck, where it would interfere with loading and 
unloading operations.
    The Certificate of Alternative Compliance allows for the horizontal 
separation of the forward and aft masthead lights to deviate from the 
requirements of Annex I, paragraph 3(a) of 72 COLREGS, and Annex I, 
Section 84.05(a) of the Inland Rules Act.
    This notice is issued under authority of 33 U.S.C. 1605(c), and 33 
CFR 81.18.

    Dated: July 27, 2009.
J.W. Johnson,
Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Chief, Inspections and Investigations 
Branch, By Direction of the Commander Eighth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. E9-19398 Filed 8-12-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P
Motion Denied; Order filed April 23, 2015.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-14-00893-CR

NO. 14-14-00894-CR

____________

CHARLES EDWARD BELL, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 182nd District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. 1412841 & 1413580

ORDER

Appellant is represented by appointed counsel, Patricia Sedita. Appellant’s 

brief was originally due January 5, 2015. We granted a total of 90 days extension 

of time to file appellant’s brief until April 6, 2015. When we granted the last 

extension, we noted that no further extensions would be granted absent exceptional 

circumstances. No brief was filed. On April 17, 2015, counsel filed a further 
request for extension of time to file appellant’s brief. Counsel did not allege any 

exceptional circumstances in the request. 

We deny the request for extension and issue the following order.

Accordingly, we order Patricia Sedita to file a brief with the clerk of this 

court on or before May 5, 2015. If counsel does not timely file appellant’s brief as 

ordered, the court will issue an order abating the appeal and directing the trial court 

to conduct a hearing to determine the reason for the failure to file the brief and the 

consideration of sanctions, appointment of new counsel, or other appropriate relief.

PER CURIAM