alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Cite as 2014 Ark. 31



## SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS

IN RE ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT AND COURT OF APPEALS RULE 6-3 Opinion DeliveredJanuary 23, 2014

PER CURIAM Effective this date, Arkansas Supreme Court and Court of Appeals Rule 6-3 is revised and republished to read as follows. Rule 6-3. Anonymity in certain appellate proceedings, opinions and case styles. (a) Scope . The record and accompanying briefs, motions, or other filings in all adoption appeals and all appeals originating in the juvenile division of circuit court shall be sealed. The Clerk shall ensure that the public docket use initials to identify juveniles in those appeals. Counsel and the Court shall preserve the juvenile’s anonymity by using initials in all subsequent captions, opinions, motions, and briefs, as well as in oral argument, if any. The record and papers on appeal shall be open for inspection only to counsel and parties of record, or, only upon order of the Court after review of a written motion. In any other appeal in which counsel for either side believes that a person’s identity should be protected by the Court, counsel may move the Court to do so. (b) Appellant as Movant . If the movant is the appellant in the case, the motion shall be filed at the time the transcript is tendered for filing to the Clerk. The person whose identity is sought to be protected shall be referred to using the initials of the first and last names in theCite as 2014 Ark. 31

motion and on the cover of the transcript, if applicable. Upon filing the motion, the Clerk shall seal the record pending the Court’s decision on the motion. (c) Appellee as Movant . If the movant is the appellee in the case, the motion shall be filed within 5 days, excluding weekends and holidays, of the date the record is filed. The person whose identity is sought to be protected shall be referred to using the initials of the first and last names in the motion. Upon filing the motion, the Clerk shall seal the record pending the Court’s decision on the motion. (d) Service . A copy of the motion must be served upon opposing counsel who will have 10 days to respond and serve the movant. Opposing counsel shall also use only the initials of the first and last names of the person at issue in any response. (e) Motion Granted . If the Court grants the motion, the Clerk shall ensure that the cover of the tendered transcript complies with the Court’s order. Counsel and the Court shall preserve the person’s anonymity by using initials to identify the protected party in all subsequent captions, opinions, motions, and briefs, as well as in oral argument, if any. The records and papers on appeal shall be open for inspection only to counsel and parties of record, or, only upon order of the Court after review of a written motion. (f) Motion Denied . If the Court denies the motion, the Clerk shall substitute the person’s full name on the cover of the transcript, if applicable, and the appeal shall proceed in accordance with these Rules. It is so ordered.

2
Motion Granted and Abatement Order filed August 8 , 2019

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 19

- 00245

- CV

____________ THE UNIVERSITY OF TE XAS M.D. ANDERSON CANCER CENTER , Appellant

V.
LAURENCE BOLTON AND MICHAEL BOLTON, INDI VIDUALLY AND AS EXECUTORS OF THE ESTATE OF MARILYN BO LTON,

DECEASED , Appellee s

On Appeal from the 189th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2016

- 10855



### ORDER

On July 29, 2019 , appellee Michael Bolton (appellee Laurence Bolton is said to be deceased) filed an unopposed motion to abate this appeal. The motion states the parties have reached a tentative settlement agreement and ask s that the appeal be
abated. The mot ion is GRANTED

.2

The appeal is abated, treated as a closed case, and removed from this court’s
active docket until October 7 , 2019 . The appeal will be reinstated on this court’s active docket at that time, or when the parties file a motion to reinstate or motion dismiss the appeal. The court may reinstate the appeal on its own motion.

PER CURIAM
#### § 87.3 Who is eligible to apply for a grant under this part?

Any public or private agency or institution is eligible to apply for a grant under this part, except Federal agencies or institutions not specifically authorized by law to receive such a grant.
#### § 19.27 [Reserved]
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 18

- 4538

_____________________________
D ANIEL D ICKERSON ,
Petitioner
,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Respondent

.

_____________________________

Petition for Writ of Prohibition

— Original Jurisdiction

.

January 7, 2019

P ER C URIAM

. The petition for writ of prohibition is denied on the merits.

W ETHERELL , O STERHAUS , and W INSOR , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized mo tion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Candice K. Brower, Regional Counsel, and Sarah K. Morris, Assistant Regional Counsel, Jacksonville
, for Petitioner

. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Benjamin L. Hoffman, Assi stant Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Respondent

.
Opinion issued March 7, 2019

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-18-00912-CV

———————————

IN RE MATAGORDA COUNTY, Relator

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator, Matagorda County, has filed a petition for writ of mandamus 

challenging the trial court’s denial of the county’s motion to transfer venue from 

Galveston County to Matagorda County.1 We deny the petition and lift the stay 

imposed by our October 18, 2018 order.

 

1 The underlying case is Kevin B. Davis v. Matagorda County, cause number 

18-CV-0678, pending in the 122nd District Court of Galveston County, Texas, the 

Honorable John C. Ellisor presiding.
2

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Goodman and Countiss.
§ 21.5041 Periods of entitlement. ( a ) *Ten-year delimiting period.* Except as provided in § 21.5042 no educational assistance shall be afforded an eligible individual under chapter 32 beyond the date of 10 years after the later of the following: ( 1 ) His or her last discharge or release from a period of active duty of 90 days or more of continuous service; or
( 2 ) His or her last discharge or release from a period of active duty of any length when the eligible individual is discharged or released— ( i ) For a service-connected disability;
( ii ) For a medical condition which preexisted such service and which VA determines is not service-connected;
( iii ) For hardship; or
( iv ) Involuntarily for convenience of the government after October 1, 1987, as a result of a reduction in force, as determined by the Secretary of the military department concerned in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense or by the Secretary of Transportation with respect to the Coast Guard when it is not operating as a service in the Navy. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 3231; Pub. L. 94-502, Pub. L. 99-576, Pub. L. 101-237)
( b ) *Use of entitlement.* The individual— ( 1 ) May use his or her entitlement at anytime during the 10-year period after the last discharge or release from active duty or other period as provided pursuant to § 21.5042 of this part;
( 2 ) Is not required to use his or her entitlement in consecutive months.
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 3232, Pub. L. 94-502, Pub. L. 99-576)
[53 FR 34496, Sept. 7, 1988, as amended at 57 FR 38614, Aug. 26, 1992]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF CML GROUP, INC. FOR THE NINE MONTHS
ENDED MAY 3, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             AUG-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-03-1997
<CASH>                                      22,422,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               11,381,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                 3,494,000
<INVENTORY>                                 37,744,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            85,993,000
<PP&E>                                      95,305,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              44,755,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             167,088,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       59,992,000
<BONDS>                                     41,593,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     5,282,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  53,069,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               167,088,000
<SALES>                                    278,400,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           278,400,000
<CGS>                                      129,135,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              129,135,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             1,209,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,192,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (41,573,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                              (14,135,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (27,438,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (27,438,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.55)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.55)
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT
35.1



SERVICER
COMPLIANCE STATEMENT



Re:
Mercedes-Benz Financial Services USA LLC, in its capacity as Servicer (the “Servicer”) under the Amended and Restated
Servicing Agreement, dated as of March 1, 2009, among Mercedes-Benz Vehicle Trust, successor by merger to Daimler Trust, as Titling
Trust, Collateral Title Co., f/k/a Daimler Title Co., as Collateral Agent, and Mercedes-Benz Financial Services USA LLC, as Lender
and as Servicer (the “Servicing Agreement”), and under the 2021-A Servicing Supplement, dated as of January 1, 2021,
among the same parties (the “Servicing Supplement”) for the period from January 1, 2022, to December 31, 2022 (the
“Reporting Period”)



I,
Brian T. Stevens, certify that:



| | (a) | A
                                         review of the Servicer’s activities during the Reporting Period and of its performance
                                         under the Servicing Agreement and the Servicing Supplement has been made under my supervision.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (b) | To
                                         the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its
                                         obligations under the Servicing Agreement and the Servicing Supplement in all material
                                         respects throughout the Reporting Period.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|
|



Dated: March 16, 2023





| | /s/ Brian T. Stevens                                                
| | --------------------------------------------------------------------
| | Name:
        Brian T. Stevens

Title:
Vice President and Controller
#### Commonwealth v. Cooperman

*Cation M. O’Malley*and *Thomas J. Foley, Jr.,*for Commonwealth.

*Zygmunt BialhowsTd,*for defendant.

May 27, 1955.

EAGEN, J.,

We are here concerned *551with an appeal from a summary conviction and a motion to dismiss the proceedings.

Defendant is charged with violating the Act of April 24, 1913, P. L. 114, secs. 1 and 2, 43 PS §251, which provides as follows:

> “. . . unless otherwise stipulated in the contract of hiring, each person, firm, or corporation employing any person, other than at an annual salary, shall pay to such person his or her earnings or wages semimonthly. The first payment shall be made between the first and fifteenth day of each month, and the second payment shall be made between the fifteenth and the last day of each month.

> “. . . Any person, firm, or corporation that shall violate any of the provisions of this act shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof before any alderman, magistrate, or justice of the peace of the proper county shall be sentenced to pay a fine not exceeding one hundred dollars ($100).”

The proof discloses that defendant was engaged in the dress manufacturing business in the Borough of Throop, Lackawanna County, and defaulted in the payment of wages due several employes. A written contract of hire entered into by the union representing the employes and the management was in effect at the time and provided for wages due to be paid weekly. However, this particular provision of the contract was never adhered to and by tacit acquiescence the wages due and paid before the default were paid every two weeks.

While we have the greatest sympathy for working people, who do not receive the fruits of their labors and none at all for an individual or corporation, who runs out on faithful employes, the facts disclosed by the testimony do not bring the situation within the purview of the statute under which this prosecution was instituted. As pointed out by this court previously *552in an opinion by Judge Hoban, Commonwealth v. Muller, 39 Lack. Jur. 55:

> “. . . the Act clearly restricts its operation to cases where there is no stipulated period for the payment of wages in the contract of hiring. The operation of the Act can be entirely avoided by prescribing in the contract of hiring for the payment of wages at intervals upon which the parties may agree. See Commonwealth v. Hause, 25 Delaware County Reports 429.

> “. . . The mere fact that an employer fails to pay wages when they are due will not call the statute into operation. Commonwealth v. Lipschutz, 19 D. & C. 415. To hold otherwise would be to lend the aid of the courts to the collection of debts in the form of wage claims by the fear of prosecution, and the failure to pay wages when due is not yet a crime in Pennsylvania.”

We hope that there are other proceedings which may be pursued successfully by the unpaid employes to obtain the wages due them.

Now, May 27, 1955, the proceedings are dismissed. The County of Lackawanna is directed to pay the costs.
41985.

#### LEWIS v. THE STATE.

Hall, Judge.

1. By special demurrers and motion to quash the indictment the defendant contends that the allegation in the indictment that he had previously been convicted of a felony deprived him of the right, given by *Code*§ 38-202, not to have his character put in issue, and of his rights to a fair trial, due process and equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the State and Federal Constitutions. The contention is that the statute, providing specially for the penalty upon conviction of a person who has previously been convicted of a felony *(Code*§ 27-2511, as amended by Ga. L. 1953, Nov. Sess., pp. 289, 290), impliedly requires that a previous conviction be alleged in the indictment, but does not provide a method for proving the allegation of a previous conviction; and since this statute does not repeal *Code*§ 38-202, declaring the general character of the defendant and his conduct in other transactions to be irrelevant, the indictment making an issue of his previous conviction deprived him of substantial rights, above mentioned. The defendant’s counsel argues this contention forcefully and persuasively. However, the issues presented have already been considered by the Supreme Court. The decided cases are contrary to the defendant’s contention. *Tribble v. State,*168 Ga. 699, 700 (148 SE 593); *Kryder v. State,*212 Ga. 272, 273 (91 SE2d 612); *Coleman v. State,*215 Ga. 865, 866 (114 SE2d 2); *Reid v. State,*49 Ga. App. 429, 430 (176 SE 100); *Berry v. State,*51 Ga. App. 442, 446 (180 SE 635).

2. “A witness may refresh and assist his memory by the use of any written instrument or memorandum, and it is not essential that the memorandum should have been made by the witness himself.” *Smith v. City of Atlanta,*22 Ga. App. 511 (96 SE 334); *Code*§ 38-1707; *Williams v. Kelsey & Hoisted,*6 Ga. 365, 373; Green, Georgia Law of Evidence 622, § 314. The defendant’s enumeration of error on the ground that a witness’ testimony was inadmissible hearsay because he “was testifying from a business record not made by himself or someone at *715his direction and that said record ... did not qualify as a business record maintained in the ordinary course of [the witness’] business,” is without merit.

Argued May 3, 1966

Decided May 13, 1966

Rehearing denied May 24, 1966

*William A. Searcy,*for appellant.

3. The evidence was sufficient to support the verdict of guilty.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Nichols, P. J., and Eberhardt, J., concur. Deen, J., disqualified.*
AD Economic Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-2011-0588 Directorate ID: 2010-SW-074-AD

Helicopter Model: Robinson Helicopter Company Model R22, R22 Alpha, R22 Beta, R22 

Mariner, R44, and R44 II Helicopters

Number of Helicopters (U.S. Operators): 2,690 Helicopters in the US Registry.

Reason: The actions specified by this AD are intended to provide more specific AD actions, to 

relieve the burdens associated with the before-each-flight check by changing it to a daily check, 

to detect blade skin debond, and to prevent blade failure and subsequent loss of control of the 

helicopter.

Costs:

Parts per Helicopter $18,130 for a Model R22 blade 

$24,800 for a Model R44 blade

Labor per Helicopter

(3 x $85/work-hour)

(10 x $85/work-hour)

$255 (to inspect 2 blades)

$850 (to replace each unairworthy blade)

Other (Explain) We estimate an average of 7 recurrent annual or 

100-hour inspections before blade retirement. 

Total Cost per Helicopter

Total US Fleet Cost $5,024,800 ($4,801,650 to inspect all the blades 

7 times; plus $94,900 to replace 5 of the Model 

R22 blades; plus $128,250 to replace 5 of the 

Model R44 blades). 

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action?” Yes ( ) No ()

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? Yes ( ) Explain Below No ()

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities?

Yes ( ) No ()

Project Engineers: 

Eric D. Schrieber (regarding Model R22 helicopters)

Fred Guerin (regarding Model R44 helicopters).
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 186 (Monday, September 28, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 49388]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-23338]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute on Aging; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following 
meetings.
    The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute on Aging Special Emphasis 
Panel. Metabolic Dysfunction and Aging.
    Date: October 28, 2009.
    Time: 1 p.m. to 5 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institute on Aging, Gateway Building, 7201 
Wisconsin Avenue, 2C-212, Bethesda, MD 20892. (Telephone Conference 
Call).
    Contact Person: Ramesh Vemuri, PhD, Chief, Scientific Review 
Branch, National Institute on Aging, National Institutes of Health, 
7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 2C-212, Bethesda, MD 20892. 301-402-
7700. <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#641612565716240a0d0c4a030b12"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="f78581c5c485b7999e9fd9909881">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Name of Committee: National Institute on Aging Special Emphasis 
Panel. Calcium Dysregulation.
    Date: October 30, 2009.
    Time: 10 a.m. to 2 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institute on Aging, Gateway Building, 7201 
Wisconsin Avenue, 2C-212, Bethesda, MD 20892. (Telephone Conference 
Call).
    Contact Person: Ramesh Vemuri, PhD, Chief, Scientific Review 
Branch, National Institute on Aging, National Institutes of Health, 
7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 2C-212, Bethesda, MD 20892. 301-402-
7700. <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#85f7f3b7b6f7c5ebecedabe2eaf3"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="4d3f3b7f7e3f0d232425632a223b">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.866, Aging 
Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: September 22, 2009.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. E9-23338 Filed 9-25-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
August 2, 2016

Dear Mr. Salo:

This letter is to inform you that the following information is missing from your petition (Docket No. FAA-2015-8448). This information is necessary for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to process your petition.

Per the Notice to Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 Petitioners Regarding Operation and Certification of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems, Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, part 107 letter posted to your docket, we have reviewed your original request and found you will be able to operate under part 107 without further relief (Tier 1). Your petition will be closed and you will be able operate in accordance with part 107 on the effective date of August 29, 2016).

However, we have identified a request to conduct operations outside of the United States. In addition to the applicable regulations of the fore ign country, operators of U.S.-registered aircraft will need to seek relief from the provisions of Part 91, Subpart H of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations to conduct operations outside of the United States.

Please confirm your intention to pursue operations outside of the United States as a comment to your docket at www.regulations.gov. Once your information is submitted, please save your tracking number and submit your tracking number along with the information submitted to the docket via e-mail to 333exemptions@faa.gov. If you want us to process your request any further, we must receive the information desc ribed above by 8/16/16. If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further.

If you have any questions, please feel fr ee to contact me at 333exemptions@faa.gov.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brenda Robeson Program Analyst
#### § 385.30 Scope.

This subpart establishes rates and terms of royalty payments for Promotional Offerings, Free Trial Offerings, and certain Purchased Content Locker Services provided by subscription and nonsubscription digital music Service Providers in accordance with the provisions of 17 U.S.C. 115.