alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Materials Not Included in

Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket

Docket Number: FAA-2013-0212

Directorate Identifier: 2012NM116AD

A330-71-3028 --- 12/16/11

P&W PW4G-100-A71-32, R1 --- 11/8/11

P&W PW4G-100-A71-32 --- 4/15/05

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained in the 

Supplemental AD Docket

MAY BE VIEWED AT: Federal Aviation Administration

Transport Airplane Directorate

Rules Docket

1601 Lind Ave. SW.,

Renton, WA 98057

425.227.1221

DURING THE HOURS OF: 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday,

except Federal holidays.

Form Date: 03/05/2008
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
<CIK> 0000728391
<NAME> IPALCO ENTERPRISES, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                    1,777,887
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                    112,949
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                         128,010
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                       152,259
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,171,105
<COMMON>                                       390,367
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                            0
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                            488,244
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                 879,974
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     51,898
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                           662,603
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                               8,000
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                   11,250
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                     0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                 557,380
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                2,171,105
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                      200,286
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                            21,696
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     130,997
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     152,693
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                         47,593
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                                 695
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                  48,288
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        12,181
<NET-INCOME>                                    36,107
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                        795
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                   36,107
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                        21,103
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                            0
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                          90,661
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .63
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .63
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                 Exhibit 11

                                  ZYCAD CORPORATION
                          COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
                                     (unaudited)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                      Three Months Ended             Six Months Ended
                                                            June 30,                       June 30,
(IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE AMOUNTS)              1997           1996           1997           1996
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S>                                                <C>            <C>            <C>           <C>
Loss attributable to ordinary stockholders         $(1,874)       $(3,939)       $(7,485)      $ (8,956)
Preferred Stock Dividend (see Note 4)                 (322)             -           (322)             -
                                                   -------        -------        -------       --------
                                                   $(2,196)       $(3,939)       $(7,807)      $ (8,956)
                                                   -------        -------        -------       --------
                                                   -------        -------        -------       --------

Net loss per share                                 $ (0.08)       $ (0.20)       $ (0.30)      $  (0.45)
                                                   -------        -------        -------       --------
                                                   -------        -------        -------       --------

Weighted average shares outstanding                 27,041         20,026         26,148         19,914
                                                   -------        -------        -------       --------
                                                   -------        -------        -------       --------

</TABLE>

                                    11
MISDESCRIPTION OF A BEQUEST.

Court of Appeals for Hamilton County.

#### Walsh v. Walsh et al.

Decided December 20, 1920.

*Wills*— Bequests *of Bonds Which Were Wrongly Named*— Extrinsic *Evidence Admissible to Show Intent of the Testator.*

A misdescription in a will of property wbicb is tbe subject of a bequest gives rise to a latent ambiguity where the misdescription is not apparent until facts are shown concerning the property which testator intended to bequeath, and extrinsic evidence is admissible to apply the will to its proper subject-matter.

*John T. Thorndyke,*for plaintiff in error.

*Powell & Smiley,*for defendants in error.

By the ■ Court.

This is a proceeding in error to review the judgment of the court of common pleas in an action for the construction of. the will of' the late Bridget Walsh.

The will in question provided for a bequest to each of the two sisters of the testatrix of “the sum of $1,000 of Louisville & Nashville Railroad bonds, belonging to my estate.” It appears that Bridget Walsh did not own any Louisville & Nashville Railroad bonds. She did, however, own two bonds of $1,-00Q each of the Newport. & Covington Bridge Company, which owned and leased to the Louisville & Nashville Railroad the bridge over which the trains of that railroad were operated. The decedent was an ignorant woman. She signed her will with a mark. She often spoke of the bonds in question as “L. & N. bonds” and “bridge bonds.” The ease falls within the rule that extrinsic evidence may be given to apply the will to its proper subject-matter. The facts concerning the estate of the testatrix show a latent ambiguity, one that does not appear until the facts concerning the property which she intends to give her beneficiaries are shown. Such an ambiguity arises when the will contains a misdescription of the object or subject, as when *514there is no such person or thing in existence; or, if in existence, the person is not the one intended or the thing does not belong to the testator. *Patch*v. *White,*117 U. S., 210. See 3 Jones Commentaries on Evidence, Section 476.

The facts in the case at bar bear a close resemblance to those in *Flood*v. *Flood,*1 Law Reports, Ireland (1902), 538.

The judgment of the court of common pleas finding that the intention of the testatrix was to give the Newport and Covington Bridge Company bonds to her two sisters was correct and will be affirmed.

Si-iohl, P. J., Hamilton and Cushing, JJ., concur.
Exhibit
32.1


CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. §1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In
connection with the Quarterly Report of SpectraScience, Inc. (the “Company”) on
Form 10-Q for the three months ended March 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, James Hitchin,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:





1.  
The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





2.  
The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.





/s/
      James HitchinJames
      HitchinChief
      Executive OfficerMay
      17, 2010
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-6053

LOUIS RAY CHAPMAN, JR.,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 versus

LARRY HUFFMAN, Regional Director, Western

Regional Office; DANIEL A. BRAXTON, Warden,

Augusta Correctional Center; CAPTAIN SMILEY,

Shift Commander; SERGEANT PRITT, Building

Sergeant (Supervisor); C/O TYLER; C/O WHITT;

C/O BURCH; DONALD A. VORGERT, Food Service

Director-A; TOM SANDERS, Food Service

Director-B,

 Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior

District Judge. (7:06-cv-00708-jlk)

Submitted: May 30, 2007 Decided: June 28, 2007

Before MICHAEL, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Louis Ray Chapman, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Louis Ray Chapman, Jr., appeals the district court’s

order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint under 28

U.S.C. § 1915A(b) (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by

the district court. Chapman v. Huffman, No. 7:06-cv-00708-jlk

(W.D. Va. Dec. 14, 2006). We dispense with oral argument because

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

AFFIRMED
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

[4910-I3-PJ

,~

OUTtNC;SYMBOL

R1N 2120-AA64

14 CFR Part 39

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

Federal Aviation Administration

03S~

[Docket No. FAA-2010-*****; Directorate Identifier 2009-NM-211-ADj

I

Airwortbiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. Model DHC-8-400, -401, and -402

Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

I

SUM:MARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the products

listed above that would supersede an existing AD. This proposed AD results from

I

mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MeAl) originated by an aviation

authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation

I

product. The MeAl describes the unsafe condition as:

Several cases have been reported where a loss of fluid in the No.2

hydraulic system has caused the power transfer uhit (PTU) to overspeed,

resulting in pressure fluctuations and increased flhid flow within the No.1

hydraulic system. In one case. the hydraulic system control logic did not

shut down the PTU and the overspeed condition persisted, resulting in the

illumination ofthe No.1 HYD FLUID HOT cantton light.

I

The unsafe condition is possible loss of both the No. I and No.2 hydraulic systems,

resulting in the potential loss of several functions essential for safe flight and landing of ATE

the airplane. The proposed AD would require actions that are intended to address the

.,.;; SYMOOl

unsafe condition described in the MeAl.
14eFn Part 39

Fcdenl Aviation Admiuistration

DE]) ARTMENT OF TRANSPORT AT10N

I

I

(Docket No. FAA-2010-"''''O;<O;<*;Directorate Identifier 2009-NM-21 ]-AD]

RlN 2J 20-AA64

Airwor!llillcss Directives; Bombardier, Inc. Model DHC-8-400. -401, and -402

Airpl11n~<;

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACI'ION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRlv[).

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt <lnew aiIWorthincss directive (AD) for the products

listed aUDve that would supersede un existing AD. This propJed AD resulls ti"Ofn

,

mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCA1) originated by an aviation

authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe ondition on :1l1 aviation

producl. The MeAl describes the ullsafe condilion as:

Severnl cascs havc been reported where a loss of fluid \11 the No.2

hydraulic system has caused the power transfer ullit (PTU) La ovcr~jJ(Jcd,

resulLing in pressure fluctuations ami increased fluid now witbin the No, 1

JlydraLllic ::lystenL In one case, the hydn1l11ic system COI1trollOgic did nol

sbul down lhe PTU and the ovcrspccd condition perSi',Cd, re::::ulting ill lhe

illumination oCthe No.1 HYD FLum HOT caution Ii "11.

The unsafe condition is possible loss of both the No. J and NO.2 11ydrl'luJie ;;ys1cm1i,

resulting in the patenti"l loss of several functions essential for Lfe tlight and landing of

the airplane. The proposed AD would require adiollS that arc intendttl to address the

ullsafc condition described in the MCAL

'''-J'''''''~1i(JL

ANE-no

"," .,' ,..

LGiJ AleC;

l~"'~='" r.,oit\9-,.-.r,,,w

.j.!.,~~

Mm _

3 /J' (/J

'"',1I.1S'''''

"""
- Bureau Home
- About Us
- Resources
- Leadership
- Remarks and Releases

HomeBureau of Conflict and Stabilization Operations...Leadership – Bureau of Conflict and Stabilization Operations

# 						Leadership – Bureau of Conflict and Stabilization Operations					

3											Items									

          -  							Witkowsky, Anne A.						Assistant SecretaryBureau of Conflict and Stabilization Operations 
          -  							Iozzi, Mark						Deputy Assistant SecretaryBureau of Conflict and Stabilization Operations 
          -  							Kringel, Neal						Acting Principal Deputy Assistant SecretaryBureau of Conflict and Stabilization Operations 

Back to Top
EXHIBIT 35.1








ANNUAL SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT PURSUANT TO ITEM 1123 OF REGULATION AB





CARMAX BUSINESS SERVICES, LLC








The undersigned, a duly authorized officer of CarMax Business Services, LLC, as Servicer pursuant to Section 3.10 of the Sale and Servicing Agreement dated as of April 1, 2020 (the "Sale and Servicing Agreement") among CarMax Auto Owner Trust 2020-2, as Issuer (the "Issuer"), CarMax Auto Funding LLC, as Depositor, and CarMax Business Services, LLC, as Servicer (the "Servicer"), does hereby certify that:





1. CarMax Business Services, LLC is, as of the date hereof, the Servicer under the Sale and Servicing Agreement.





2. The undersigned is duly authorized to execute and deliver this Officer's Certificate.





3. A review of the activities of the Servicer during the period beginning on March 1, 2022 and ending on February 28, 2023 and of the Servicer's performance under the Sale and Servicing Agreement was made under my supervision.  To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Sale and Servicing Agreement in all material respects throughout such period.








Capitalized terms used in this certificate and not otherwise defined herein have the meanings assigned to them in the Sale and Servicing Agreement.





IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned, a duly authorized officer of the Servicer, has duly executed this Officer's Certificate this 26th day of May, 2023.





CARMAX BUSINESS SERVICES, LLC





/s/ Andrew J. McMonigle


Andrew J. McMonigle


Vice President and Treasurer
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D18-0093

_____________________________

EDDIE JAMES MURPHY,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Columbia County.

Leandra G. Johnson, Judge.

June 20, 2018

PER CURIAM.

Due to Appellant’s apparent abuse of the legal process by his 

repeated pro se filings attacking his judgment and sentence, the 

Court issued an order directing Appellant to show cause why he 

should not be prohibited from future pro se filings. See State v. 

Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47, 48 (Fla. 1999) (requiring that courts “first 

provide notice and an opportunity to respond before preventing [a] 

litigant from bringing further attacks on his or her conviction and 

sentence”). Appellant’s response to the show cause order does not 

provide a legal basis to prohibit the imposition of sanctions.

Because Appellant’s continued and repeated attacks on his 

judgment and sentence have become an abuse of the legal process, 

we hold that he is barred from future pro se filings in this Court 

concerning Columbia County Circuit Court case number 1997-715-
2

CF. The Clerk of the Court is directed not to accept any future 

filings concerning this case unless they are filed by a member in 

good standing with The Florida Bar. Appellant is warned that any 

filings that violate the terms of this opinion may result in a referral 

to the appropriate institution for disciplinary procedures as 

provided in section 944.279, Florida Statutes. See Fla. R. App. P. 

9.410.

ROWE, RAY, and MAKAR, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________

Eddie James Murphy, pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Amanda D. Stokes, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
§ 488.318 Inadequate survey performance. ( a ) CMS considers survey performance to be inadequate if the State survey agency— ( 1 ) Indicates a pattern of failure to— ( i ) Identify deficiencies and the failure cannot be explained by changed conditions in the facility or other case specific factors;
( ii ) Cite only valid deficiencies;
( iii ) Conduct surveys in accordance with the requirements of this subpart; or
( iv ) Use Federal standards, protocols, and the forms, methods and procedures specified by CMS in manual instructions; or
( 2 ) Fails to identify an immediate jeopardy situation.
( b ) Inadequate survey performance does not— ( 1 ) Relieve a SNF or NF of its obligation to meet all requirements for program participation; or
( 2 ) Invalidate adequately documented deficiencies.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 21 (Tuesday, February 3, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 5925]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-2207]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

RIN 0648-XN04


National Marine Fisheries Service; Public Meeting

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of a public workshop.

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

SUMMARY: NMFS will hold a workshop for participants that are required 
to submit an Economic Data Report (EDR) for the Amendment 80 
Cooperative Program.

DATES: The workshop will be held on Tuesday, February 17, 2009, from 
9:30 a.m. to 12 p.m. Pacific Standard Time.

ADDRESSES: The workshop will be held at the Groundfish Forum Office, 
4241 21st Avenue West, Suite 302 Seattle, WA 98199, telephone: (206) 
213-5270.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brian Garber-Yonts, (206) 526-6301 or 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#5f3d2d363e3171383e2d3d3a2d722630312b2c1f31303e3e71383029"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="8defffe4ece3a3eaecffefe8ffa0f4e2e3f9fecde3e2ececa3eae2fb">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Amendment 80 Cooperative Program 
requires any Amendment 80 quota share permit holder to submit an 
Economic Data Report for the previous calendar year. NMFS staff will 
hold a workshop with industry members to review current Amendment 80 
EDR forms and documentation requirements. Workshop participants will 
also discuss the development of best practices guidelines for 
completing Amendment 80 EDR forms and may discuss possible future 
revisions to the Amendment 80 EDR forms. For further information on the 
Amendment 80 Cooperative Program, please visit the NMFS Alaska Region 
website at http://www.alaskafisheries.noaa.gov.
    Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come 
before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject 
of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to 
those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising 
after publication of this notice that require emergency action under 
section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 
Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's 
intent to take final action to address the emergency.

Special Accommodations

    This workshop is physically accessible to people with disabilities. 
Requests for special accommodations should be directed to Brian Garber-
Yonts (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) at least 5 working days 
before the workshop date.

    Dated: January 29, 2009.
Tracey L. Thompson,
Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. E9-2207 Filed 2-2-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### Abraham Pickle *against*Cornelius Covenhoven.

ÓN CERTIORARI.

Jurisdiction of justice in action for mesne profits, (a)

THIS is an action of trespass for mesne profits, after a recovery in ejectment. It was originally brought before " . ,. & *J t tt t*one of the justices of the peace of the county of *Hunter-don,*and judgment rendered for the plaintiff. It was after-wards carried up by appeal, to the Court of Common Pleas of that county, and the judgment of the justice there affirmed. It was removed into this court by certiorari, directed to the Common Pleas. The only reason assigned for the reversal of the judgment, and the only question submitted to the consideration of the court, was, whether the subject matter in controversy is within the jurisdiction of a justice of the peace? Whether an action for mesne profits af*ter a recovery in ejectment, can be maintained in the Court for the trial of Small Causes.

*Ewing*for plaintiff in certiorari. *Saxton*for defendant.

(a)

*Blackwell vs. Leslie, ante 112. Gregory vs. Kanouse, 6 Hal. 68. Campfield vs. Johnson, 1 Zab. 86. Vantyl vs. Marsh, 2 South. 507.*How and when mesne profits are recoverable. See *Den, Delatouche vs. Chubb, Coxe 466. Den, Bray vs. McShane, 1 Gr. 35. Den, Hancock vs. Fen, 4 Zab. 545. Izard vs. Bodine, 3 Stock. 403. Derrickson vs. White, 3 Vr. 137.*

By the court.

We are unanimously of opinion, that the judgment must be *reversed.*
#### Lawrence REGIRA, Jr., et al. v. Ralph FALSETTA, et al.

No. 81-CA-1337.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 12, 1981.

In re Lawrence Regira, Jr., et al., applying for reconsideration of a writ granted in part and denied in part, on May 28, 1981. Parish of Ascension. No. 29053.

Denied.

BLANCHE, J., would grant the writ.