alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
In the Matter of: 

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D. C. 

RECEIVED 

LIBERTY FOUNDATION, INC., MAR- 7 2613 

Respondent. HEARING DOCKET 

Docket No. FAA-2012-0477 

Case No. 2011-GL-03-0070 

Honorable J. E. Sullivan, Administrative Law Judge 

--------------------------------------' 

RESPONDENT'S NOTICE OF SERVICE OF EXPERT REPORTS 

In accordance with Paragraph 5 of the Court's "Order Granting Continuance of 

May 2013 Hearing To November 2013 And Setting New Procedural Deadlines" 

Respondent, Liberty Foundation, Inc., by and through its undersigned attorney, herewith 

notices the service of the expert reports of WilliaT Duncan, Gary Norville, Semih H. 

Genculu, and Francis M. De Joseph, on this r'L :..:l-t~ay of February, 2013. 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

··V: 

!4 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this · day of February, 2013, this document 

was served on the persons/entities listed below An the roanner set forth. '; " r, 

,. ,ck·~··/ .~~ .. i,n.t;~ By: .-".\ ;\~i1~.!uy· L-(. tx_~:;~~i'l\. !~'·~-~ ... ~~~~ 

Stuart A. Goldstein · 

Attorney for Respondent 

9350 South Dixie Highway, 1Oth Floor 

Miami, FL 33156 

Tel: (305) 670-1222 

Fax: (305) 670-7065 

Email: stuartgoldsteinpa@ att.net 

STUART A. GO'LDSTEIN, P. A 

9350 SOUTH DIXIE HIGHWAY, 10TH FLOOR, MIAMI, FL 33156 

T: (305} 670-1222 F: (305) 670-7065 

SIUARTGOLDSTEINPA@ATT.NET 
Original and One Copy to: 

Federal Aviation Administration 

600 Independence Avenue, S. W. 

Washington, D. C. 20591 

SERVICE LIST 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building, Suite 2W1 000 

By regular U. S. Mail 

(without expert reports) 

One Copy to: 

The Honorable J. E. Sullivan, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U. S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S. E. (E11-31 0) 

Washington, D. C. 20590 

By Facsimile (202) 366-7536 

and regular U. S. Mail 

(without expert reports) 

Christopher Stevenson, Esq. 

Office of the Regional Counsel 

Southern Region 

Federal Aviation Administration 

P. 0. Box 20636 

Atlanta, GA 30320 

By Facsimile: (404) 305-5223 

and Federal Express 

(with expert reports) 

STUART A. GOLDSTEIN, P. A. 

9350 SOUTH DIXIE HIGHWAY, 10TH FLOOR, MIAMI, Fl 33156 

T: (305) 670-1222 F: {305) 670-7065 

SI..L!ABNQJ.QS.lf.JN PA Ciil AlT. NET 

2
###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter II

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to subchapter A appear at 78 FR 60697, Oct. 2, 2013.

#### § 352.0 Offering of bonds.

The Secretary of the Treasury offered to the people of the United States, United States Savings Bonds of Series HH in exchange for eligible United States Savings Bonds of Series E and EE and United States Savings Notes (Freedom Shares). This offering is being withdrawn and will terminate at the close of business on August 31, 2004.

[69 FR 40318, July 2, 2004]
###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter II

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to subchapter A appear at 78 FR 60697, Oct. 2, 2013.

#### § 312.6 Applications other than to Federal Reserve Banks.

Nothing contained in this part shall be construed as preventing such associations and credit unions, if they desire to assume such responsibility, from acting as agents of prospective purchasers in making applications to, and obtaining United States Savings Bonds from post offices or other designated places of issuance.
# L_2020435EN.01008001.xml

| 23.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 435/80 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 435/80

---

Corrigendum to Council Decision (CFSP) 2020/1312 of 21 September 2020 amending Decision 2013/798/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Central African Republic

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 308 of 22 September 2020
  )

On page 3, Article 1:

for:

| ‘(h) | the sale, supply or export of arms and other related lethal equipment that are not listed in point (g) of Article 2(1), and the provision of related assistance, to the CAR security forces, including state civilian law enforcement institutions, where such arms and equipment are intended solely for support of, or use in, the CAR process of SSR, as approved in advance by the Committee; or”.’, |
| --- | --- |

‘(h)

the sale, supply or export of arms and other related lethal equipment that are not listed in point (g) of Article 2(1), and the provision of related assistance, to the CAR security forces, including state civilian law enforcement institutions, where such arms and equipment are intended solely for support of, or use in, the CAR process of SSR, as approved in advance by the Committee; or”.’,

read:

| ‘(h) | the sale, supply, transfer or export of arms and other related lethal equipment that are not listed in point (g) of Article 2(1), and the provision of related assistance, to the CAR security forces, including state civilian law enforcement institutions, where such arms and equipment are intended solely for support of, or use in, the CAR process of SSR, as approved in advance by the Committee; or”.’. |
| --- | --- |

‘(h)

the sale, supply, transfer or export of arms and other related lethal equipment that are not listed in point (g) of Article 2(1), and the provision of related assistance, to the CAR security forces, including state civilian law enforcement institutions, where such arms and equipment are intended solely for support of, or use in, the CAR process of SSR, as approved in advance by the Committee; or”.’.

---
40159.

#### TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY et al. v. WILLIAMS. SWIFT & COMPANY v. VICKERS. FIDELITY & CASUALTY COMPANY et al. v. DAY et al. EMPLOYERS INSURANCE COMPANY OF ALABAMA et al. v. MOSS. FIREMEN’S FUND INSURANCE COMPANY et al. v. QUARLES.

40175.

40191.

40198.

40199.

Decided September 20, 1963.

*Greene, Neely, Buckley & DeRieux, Burt DeRieux,*for appellants (Case No. 40159).

*James W. Paris, J. N. Rainey,*contra.

*H. J. Quincey, E. R. Smith, Jr.,*for appellant (Case No. 40175).

*Jack J. Helms,*contra.

*Smith, Field, Ringel, Martin & Carr, Richard D. Carr, Willis-ton C. White,*for appellants (Case No. 40191).

*James E. Hardy, Carl F. Sanders, Burt DeRieux,*contra.

*Powell, Goldstein, Frazer & Murphy, Earl J. Van Gerpen,*for appellant (Case No. 40198).

*Dan Winn, Eugene B. Brown,*contra.

*Smith, Field, Ringel, Martin & Carr, Charles L. Drew,*for appellants (Case No. 40199).

*Love & Pierce, John W. Love, Jr.,*contra.

Per Curiam.

These are direct appeals from the Board of Workmen’s Compensation under that portion of Ga. L. 1963, pp. 141, 156, purporting to amend *Code Ann.*§ 114-710. This amendment having been held void in *Baggett Transportation Co. v. Barnes,*108 Ga. App. 68 (132 SE2d 229), the appeals must be

*Dismissed.*

*All the Judges concur.*
YEAR AREA EIC EICSOU ROG (tpd) 2008 PLACER COUNTY APCD 230-232-9000-0000 232-WOOD FURNITURE AND FABRICATED PRODUCTS COATINGS 0.06 2008 PLACER COUNTY APCD 230-232-9100-0000 232-WOOD FURNITURE AND FABRICATED PRODUCTS COATINGS 0.06 2008 PLACER COUNTY APCD 230-240-8300-0000 240-THINNING AND CLEANUP SOLVENT USES 0.02 Total 0.14 estimated reduction (%) 1 87% emisison estimation after reduction (tpd) 0.02 Control Efficiency, CE 0.10 Rule Efficiency, RE 2 0.8 Rule Penetration, RP 3 1 Control Profile, CL, CL= (1-(1-CE)*RE*RP) 0.28

1Reference: SMAQMD staff report for Rule 463, August 25, 2008 2default setting 3default setting
40450.

#### TIGUE v. AMERICAN MUTUAL LIABILITY INSURANCE COMPANY et al.

Bell, Presiding Judge.

This -case presents an appeal from a judgment of the superior court affirming an award of the State Board of Workmen’s Compensation. The award was based upon the following written stipulation, signed by all parties to the cause, which the board approved: “It is stipulated by and between the parties to the above-styled case as follows: 1. Employer’s First Report of Injury filed with the Board shows an alleged date of injury as August 18, 1962, when the claimant alleged he was cranking tractor and sprained his back. 2. The employee-claimant told Dr. Riker that he injured his back on August 1, 1962. He advised the company in a statement that he injured his back some time in July, 1962. 3. After thoroughly investigating the matter, *724the parties hereto stipulate and agree that said J. W. Tigue did not give the required notice to his employer within the time allowed by law and therefore, his claim for compensation should be denied. Wherefore, the parties hereto pray approval of this stipulation and request an award of the State Board of Workmen’s Compensation approving the same.” *Held:*

Decided November 18, 1963

Rehearing denied December 4, 1963.

*Wade H.*Leonard, for plaintiff in error.

*Woodruff, Saveli, Lane & Williams, A. Ed Lane, John M. Williams, Raymond W. Dew,*contra.

This case is controlled by *McCord v. Employers Liability*Assurance *Corp.,*96 Ga. App. 35 (99 SE2d 327). The record here as to all material aspects almost duplicates the record in *McCord.*In legal effect the two records are identical. It follows that the holdings and judgments in *McCord*are binding precedents which must govern this case.

The trial judge properly affirmed the award of the State Board of Workmen’s Compensation which was founded on a stipulation signed by all the parties to the cause and which was approved and used as the basis of the award.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Hall and Pannell, JJ., concur.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM 10-Q
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                       1,327,033
<SECURITIES>                                    55,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                  620,547
<ALLOWANCES>                                    82,106
<INVENTORY>                                    411,150
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,972,368
<PP&E>                                         425,558
<DEPRECIATION>                                 323,039
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,843,319
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,252,117
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         11
<COMMON>                                        16,947
<OTHER-SE>                                     574,242
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,843,317
<SALES>                                      1,851,685
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,851,685
<CGS>                                        1,139,933
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                (372,713)
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             253,723
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                830,742
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (820)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            831,562
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   831,562
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter II

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to subchapter A appear at 78 FR 60697, Oct. 2, 2013.

###### Editorial Note on Part 363

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 363 appear at 70 FR 57433, Sept. 30, 2005, 70 FR 57442, Sept. 30, 2005, and 75 FR 70815, Nov. 19, 2010.

#### § 363.125 How is payment made on a book-entry savings bond?

We will make payment by the ACH method to the designated account at a United States depository financial institution.
###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter II

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to subchapter A appear at 78 FR 60697, Oct. 2, 2013.

#### § 202.1 Scope of regulations.

The regulations in this part govern the designation of Depositaries and Financial Agents of the Federal Government (hereinafter referred to as depositaries), and their authorization to accept deposits of public money and to perform other services as may be required of them. Public money includes, but is not limited to, revenue and funds of the United States, and any funds the deposit of which is subject to the control or regulation of the United States or any of its officers, agents, or employees. The designation and authorization of Treasury Tax and Loan depositaries for the receipt of deposits representing Federal taxes are governed by the regulations in part 203 of this chapter.

[62 FR 45520, Aug. 27, 1997]
NO. 07-07-0291-CV

	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

	FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	AT AMARILLO

	PANEL D

	AUGUST 21, 2007

	______________________________

	MICHELLE MARTIN, APPELLANT

	V.

	CHARLES KIRTLAND AND DEBORAH KIRTLAND, APPELLEES

	_________________________________

	FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 2 OF TRAVIS COUNTY;

	NO. C-1-CV-06-00-7610; HONORABLE J. DAVID PHILLIPS, JUDGE

	_______________________________

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRTLE, JJ.

	MEMORANDUM OPINION

	Appellant Michelle Martin filed a notice of appeal on June 12, 2007.  However, she did not pay the filing fee required of appellants under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 5. Nor did she file an affidavit of indigence per Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 20.1. By letter from this Court dated July 30, 2007, we informed appellant that "[u]nless the filing fee in the amount of $125.00 is paid by Thursday, August 09, 2007, this appeal will be subject to dismissal.  See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3.”  The deadline lapsed, and the fee was not received.

	Because appellant failed to pay the requisite filing fee as directed by the Court, we dismiss the appeal pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.3(c).  

							James T. Campbell

							          Justice
###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter II

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to subchapter A appear at 78 FR 60697, Oct. 2, 2013.

###### Editorial Note on Part 360

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 360 appear at 79 FR 8860, Feb. 14, 2014.

#### § 360.58 Forms to be certified.

When required in the instructions on a Fiscal Service transaction form, the form must be signed before an authorized certifying officer.
###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter II

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to subchapter A appear at 78 FR 60697, Oct. 2, 2013.

###### Editorial Note on Part 356

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 356 appear at 70 FR 57439, Sept. 30, 2005.

#### § 356.1 To which securities does this circular apply?

The provisions in this part, including the appendices, and each individual auction announcement govern the sale and issuance of marketable Treasury securities issued on or after March 1, 1993. This part also governs all securities eligible for the STRIPS (Separate Trading of Registered Interest and Principal of Securities) Program (See § 356.31.). In addition, these provisions and the auction announcements govern any other types of securities we may issue under this part.
# L_2020335EN.01001901.xml

| 13.10.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 335/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.10.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 335/19

---

COUNCIL DECISION (EU) 2020/1468

taken by common accord with the President of the Commission

of 12 October 2020

appointing a Member of the European Commission

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular the second paragraph of Article 246 thereof,

Having regard to the opinion of the European Parliament (1),

Whereas:

| (1) | On 28 November 2019, the European Council adopted Decision (EU) 2019/1989 (2) appointing the European Commission for the period until 31 October 2024. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

On 28 November 2019, the European Council adopted Decision (EU) 2019/1989 (2) appointing the European Commission for the period until 31 October 2024.

| (2) | In a letter dated 27 August 2020, Ms Ursula VON DER LEYEN, President of the Commission, informed the Council that Mr Phil HOGAN had resigned from his post as a Member of the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

In a letter dated 27 August 2020, Ms Ursula VON DER LEYEN, President of the Commission, informed the Council that Mr Phil HOGAN had resigned from his post as a Member of the Commission.

| (3) | In accordance with the second paragraph of Article 246 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, a vacancy caused by resignation is to be filled for the remainder of the Member’s term of office by a new Member of the same nationality. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

In accordance with the second paragraph of Article 246 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, a vacancy caused by resignation is to be filled for the remainder of the Member’s term of office by a new Member of the same nationality.

| (4) | A new Member of the Commission should therefore be appointed, |
| --- | --- |

(4)

A new Member of the Commission should therefore be appointed,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

By common accord with Ms Ursula VON DER LEYEN, President of the Commission, the Council appoints Ms Mairead MCGUINNESS as Member of the Commission for the remainder of the term of office, which runs until 31 October 2024.

Article 2

This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.

Done at Luxembourg, 12 October 2020.

For the Council

The President

J. BORRELL FONTELLES

---

(1)  Opinion of 7 October 2020 (not yet published in the Official Journal).

1

(2)  European Council Decision (EU) 2019/1989 of 28 November 2019 appointing the European Commission (OJ L 308, 29.11.2019, p. 100).

2

---
#### Carmen Fernández, Appellant, *v.*Registrar of Property of San Juan, First Section, Respondent.

No. 1003.

Submitted November 1, 1937.

Decided November 24, 1937.

*Carlos J. Torres,*for appellant. The registrar appeared by brief.

Mr. Justice Hutchison

delivered the opinion of the Court.

A registrar of property refused to cancel a notice of *lis pendens.*The request for cancellation was made more than four years after the filing of the notice.

 Section 388 *(a)*of the Mortgage Law authorizes the cancellation of—

> “entries of attachments, prohibition to alienate, suits, and all other entries made by virtue of judicial orders entered for over four (4) years, unless they are for just cause extended by order of the court where such cases are pending.” Special Session Laws 1923, p. 36; Act number 19, Third Special Session 1936, p. 148.

*345Among those who may request the entry of cautionary notices under subdivision one of Section 42 of the Mortgage Laws is—

> “he who brings an action to recover the ownership of real property or the constitution, declaration, modification or extintion of any real right.”

By the terms of Section 43—

> “In the case of subdivision 1 of the preceding section, a cautionary notice can not be entered except under an order of the court made on motion of a legitimate party and by virtue of a document sufficient therefor in the discretion of the court.”

The “attachments and prohibition to alienate” immediately preceding the word “suits” are, of course, authorized by an order of court and without such an order cannot be obtained. Immediately following the word “suit” come the words “and all *other entries made by virtue of judicial orders.”*Construing the word “suits”—or the more intelligible phrase of the Spanish text *‘‘anotaciones de demanda”*—in the light of its context, the meaning must be limited, we think, to such cautionary notices of *lis pendens*as have been “made by virtue of judicial orders.” No judicial order is required as a condition precedent to the filing of a notice of *lis pendens*under Section 91 of the Code of Civil Procedure. A cautionary notice once filed under that section, remains in force during the pendency of the action.

Our conclusion is that the registrars of property are not authorized by Section 388(a) of the Mortgage Law to cancel a notice of *Us. pendens*after the expiration of four years from the date of the entry. Such a cancellation may be readily obtained, of course, whenever the suit is ended. Until then it must remain in force unless a cancellation thereof be ordered by the court.

The ruling appealed from must be affirmed.

Mr. Justice Córdova Dávila took no part in.the decision of this court.
#### Walter Maggay *vs.*Serge Nikitko.

Maltbie, C. J., Haines, Hinman, Banks and Aveky, Js.

Argued May 2d

decided June 5th, 1934.

*Michael V. Blansfield*and *Sidney S. Cassel,*for the appellant (plaintiff).

*Patrick Healey,*for the appellee (defendant).

Per Curiam.

Our opinion on a previous appeal in this case appears in 117 Conn. 206, 167 Atl. 816. The only question now presented relates to the validity of the action of the court upon the motion to set aside the verdict of the jury as excessive.

This appeal is taken from the judgment and is erroneous in form, since the assigned error relates only to the setting aside of the verdict. General Statutes, §§5692, 5693; Rules for Appellate Procedure, §§3 and 4 as amended. We entertain the appeal, however, as the assignment limiting its scope was filed within two weeks after the decision upon the motion to set the verdict aside. Rules for Appellate Procedure, *supra; Schmidt*v. *Schaub,*115 Conn. 208, 161 Atl. 98; *Marcil*v. *Merriman & Sons, Inc.,*115 Conn. 678, 163 Atl. 411.

*700The obvious difficulty of fixing just compensation in this class of cases has resulted in divergent views in various jurisdictions as to the finality of the jury’s verdict, and these are reflected in decisions cited by the appellant. The right and duty of the court, however, to condition the acceptance of the verdict of the jury, or to set it aside, in a proper case, is not an open question in this State. We have held it a correct, and often a desirable action, within the properly exercised discretion of the court.

The evidence which was before the jury in the instant case fully justified a plaintiff’s verdict. It also points unmistakably to a serious impairment of the normal conjugal affections between the plaintiff and his wife prior to the acts which are the basis of the present action. The plaintiff had left his wife on three occasions before finally ceasing to live with her in 1926. It is from this time that the acts of the defendant must be dated, owing to the statute of limitations, of six years. The relation of husband and wife as far back as 1921 was described by a daughter as “terrible, fighting about anything and everything,” and the wife had him arrested on various occasions. The evidence as a whole shows conclusively that by 1926, the value of the consortium had approached the vanishing point, and an award of $8000 for its loss in 1932 is so obviously excessive as to call for the intervention of the court.

The jury not only had before them the evidence of the acts of the defendant after 1926, but a long succession of similar acts for several years prior to that time, and though correctly instructed that they could only make their award based on a loss of consortium within the statute of limitations, the verdict induces the belief that this warning was misunderstood, or, through prejudice against the defendant, was disre*701garded. The action of the court in these circumstances was wholly justified and is sustained by numerous decisions in this State such as *Doroszka*v. *Lavine,*111 Conn. 575, 160 Atl. 692, where questions here involved are discussed.

There is no error.