alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## U NITED 

## S TATES 

## A IR 

## F ORCE 

## C OURT OF 

## C RIMINAL 

## A PPEALS



### UNITED STATES ) No. ACM S32746 Appellee ) )

v. ) ) ORDER

Christian S

. H. RUPP )

Airman First Class (E

- 3) )

U.S. Air Force ) Appellant ) Panel 2

On 31 July 2023

, Appellant submitted a Motion to Withdraw from Appellant Review and Motion to Attach. Specifically, Appellant moved to attach a

DD Form 2330, Waiver/Withdrawal of Appellate Rights in General and Special

Courts

- Martial Subject to Review by a Court of Criminal Appeals

, signed by
Appellant and Appellant’s counsel on 26 July 2023.

The Government did not submit any opposition.

Accordingly, it is by the court on this 3 d day of August , 202 3

,

ORDERED:

Appellant’s Motion to Withdraw from Appellate Review and Motion to Attach are GRANTED. Appellant’s case is forwarded to the Appellate Records
Branch (JAJM) for further processing in accordance with Rules for Courts

Martial 1115(f)(3) and 1201, Manual for Courts

- Martial, United States (2019
ed.).

FOR THE COURT

FLEMING E. KEEFE, Capt, USAF Deputy Clerk of the Court
1 

### Daniels, Nia (FAA)

From: Daniels, Nia (FAA)

Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2015 11:01 AM

To: 'ColorPhoto@q.com'

Cc: Pappas, Rob (FAA); Pearson, Lakisha (FAA); C ooper, Thuy (FAA); Ferritto, Michelle (FAA) Subject: Request for Additional Information - ColorPhoto



### January 7, 2015

Mr. Charles J. Lesowske

ColorPhoto 16176 Foothill Loop South Sisters, OR 97759

Dear Mr. Lesowske:

This letter is to inform you that the following information is missing from your petition (Docket No. FAA2014-0893). This information is necessary for the Federal Aviation Administration to process your petition. Please submit the additional information to your docket at www.regulations.gov and submit any proprietary information to the FAA Headqua rters or electronically via e-mail to nia.daniels@faa.gov

.

 List the aircraft’s cruise speed.

 Provide the flight time for the proposed UAS operation.

 Provide description of proximity to airports.

Please provide the additional information by January 21, 2015.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (202) 267-7626.

Sincerely,

Nia Daniels Program Analyst

Nia Daniels, ARM

‐ 108

Federal Aviation Administration

Office of Rulemaking, Airmen & Airspace Rules Division

800 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20591

PH: (202) 267 ‐ 7626

Fax: (202) 267 ‐ 5075 nia.daniels@faa.gov2
----

            COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 544/2005

of 8 April 2005         

suspending the buying-in of butter in certain Member States

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1255/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in milk and milk products (1),

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 2771/1999 of 16 December 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1255/1999 as regards intervention on the market in butter and cream (2), and in particular Article 2 thereof,

Whereas:

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Buying-in of butter as provided for in Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1255/1999 is hereby suspended in Belgium, Denmark, Cyprus, Hungary, Malta, Greece, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Austria, Slovakia, Slovenia, Finland and Sweden.

Article 2

Regulation (EC) No 474/2005 is hereby repealed.

Article 3

This Regulation shall enter into force on 9 April 2005.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 8 April 2005.

For the Commission

Mariann FISCHER BOEL            

Member of the Commission

----

(1)OJ L 160, 26.6.1999, p. 48. Regulation as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 186/2004 (OJ L 29, 3.2.2004, p. 6).

(2)OJ L 333, 24.12.1999, p. 11. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2250/2004 (OJ L 381, 28.12.2004, p. 25).

(3)OJ L 78, 24.3.2005, p. 27.

----
41658.

#### CURTIS et al. v. LINDSEY.

Submitted January 3, 1966

Decided February 16, 1966.

*Wallace & Wallace, Albert B. Wallace, Charles J. Driebe, Greene, Neely, Buckley & De Bieux, James H. Moore, Thomas B. Branch, III,*for appellants.

*Ballard & Thigpen, Hutcheson & Kilpatrick, Lee Hutcheson,*for appellee.

*126Frankum, Judge.

On November 6, 1964, the judge of the Superior Court of Clayton County passed the following order in this case: “This case being called in its regular order and there being no response by the plaintiff or defendant, the same is hereby dismissed for want of prosecution.” Thereafter, the plaintiff made a written motion, the effect of which was that the case be reinstated. This motion was sworn to by the plaintiff and tendered to the judge who issued a rule nisi thereon on July 2, 1965. No reason was stated in the motion itself or in the plaintiff’s affidavit why the motion was not sooner filed, it not even being alleged therein that the plaintiff or his attorneys did not know of the rendition of the judgment of dismissal at the time the order was passed. Since the terms of the Superior Court of Clayton County begin on the first Mondays of February, May, August, and November of each year, it is apparent that the order of dismissal was passed at the November term, 1964, and the motion to reinstate was made at the May term, 1965, two terms after the dismissal.

A motion, the effect of which is to have a case which has been dismissed reinstated, stands upon the same footing, as to diligence in making the same, as an extraordinary motion for a new trial, and where such a motion is made at a term subsequent to that at which the judgment of dismissal was passed, the movantmust make a similar showing as to excuses for delay as is required with respect to an extraordinary motion for a new trial. *Austin v. Markham,*41 Ga. 161 (1); *Watkins v. Brizendine,*111 Ga. 458 (1) (36 SE 807); *Miraglia v. Bryson,*152 Ga. 828 (3a) (111 SE 655); *Philip Carey Co. v. Sheppard,*19 Ga. App. 368 (3) (91 SE 444); *Byers v. Byers,*41 Ga. App. 671 (2) (154 SE 456). Under these authorities the motion in this case, being entirely silent as- to reasons for the delay in filing it, was insufficient to invoke the discretion of the trial judge, if any he had, to set aside his judgment rendered two terms prior to the time the motion was filed, and the order setting aside the judgment of dismissal and reinstating the case was error.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Felton, C. J., and Pannell, J., concur.*
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2009 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2009

    To repeal the Medicare cost containment provisions contained in 
      subtitle A of title VIII of the Medicare Prescription Drug, 
              Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 23, 2007

  Mr. Wexler introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committee on Energy 
    and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the 
  Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall 
           within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To repeal the Medicare cost containment provisions contained in 
      subtitle A of title VIII of the Medicare Prescription Drug, 
              Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. REPEAL OF MEDICARE COST CONTAINMENT PROVISIONS.

    Subtitle A of title VIII of the Medicare Prescription Drug, 
Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 (Public Law 108-173) is 
repealed and the provisions of law amended by such subtitle are 
restored as if such subtitle had not been enacted.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 10.27

                                                                   Perry A. Sook
                                                                   President/CEO

TO: Shirley Green

FR: Perry A. Sook

RE: Addendum to Employment Agreement

DA: 8/28/03

Reference is hereby made to your Executive Employment Agreement with Nexstar
Broadcasting Group dated January 5, 1998 as amended August 13, 2002. This
memorandum will serve as a subsequent addendum.

Paragraph 4, Compensation. Section 4 (a) Base Salary (as defined in the
agreement) is hereby amended as follows:

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                          Base Salary
<S>                                                      <C>
From September 1, 2003 through August 31, 2004            $175,000
From September 1, 2004 through August 31, 2005            $180,000
From September 1, 2005 through August 31, 2006            $185,000
Effective September 1, 2006 and thereafter                $190,000
</TABLE>

Section 4 (b) is hereby amended to reflect an annual bonus target of $20,000 to
be awarded at the conclusion of each calendar year, at the discretion of the
CEO.

Paragraph 6 (b) Termination Payments. (i) the period is hereby extended to one
year.

Equity Compensation: You will be granted 30,000 options at the IPO price in the
Nexstar Initial Public Offering. These options will vest 50% at the time of the
IPO, and 50% in equal installments over five years.

All other aspects of your employment agreement with Nexstar remain in full force
and effect and will be governed by your agreement and the Nexstar Employee
Handbook.

Please indicate your agreement with and acceptance of the terms and conditions
of this addendum as of the date written by signing below.

Sincerely,                              Agreed and Accepted,

/s/ Perry A. Sook                       /s/ Shirley Green
    Perry A. Sook                           Shirley Green
    President/CEO                           VP, Finance



                        Nexstar Broadcasting Group, Inc.
            909 Lake Carolyn Parkway, Suite 1450, Irving, TX 75039,
                       (972) 373-8800 fax (972) 373-8888
###### Editorial Note on Part 1

#### Editorial Notes:

1. In Patent and Trademark Office publications and usage the part number is omitted from the numbers of §§ 1.1 to 1.352 and the numbers to the right of the decimal point correspond with the respective rule numbers.

2. For nomenclature changes to part 1, see 68 FR 14335, Mar. 25, 2003; 87 FR 68904, Nov. 17, 2022.

#### § 1.919 Filing date of request for *inter partes* reexamination.

(a) The filing date of a request for *inter partes* reexamination is the date on which the request satisfies all the requirements for the request set forth in § 1.915.

(b) If the request is not granted a filing date, the request will be placed in the patent file as a citation of prior art if it complies with the requirements of § 1.501.

[65 FR 76777, Dec. 7, 2000, as amended at 71 FR 9262, Feb. 23, 2006]

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 2 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 6 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 7 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 1 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 3 pertaining to both patents and trademarks is placed in the grouping pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 4 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 5 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.
§ 17.71 Revocation of VA approval. ( a ) If a hearing official determines under § 17.70 of this part that a community residential care facility does not comply with the standards set forth in § 17.63 of this part and determines that the community residential care facility shall not have further time to remedy the noncompliance, the hearing official shall revoke approval of the community residential care facility and notify the community residential care facility of this revocation.
( b ) Upon revocation of VA approval, VA health care personnel shall: ( 1 ) Cease referring veterans to the community residential care facility; and,
( 2 ) Notify any veteran residing in the community residential care facility of the facility's disapproval and request permission to assist in the veteran's removal from the facility. If a veteran has a person or entity authorized by law to give permission on behalf of the veteran, VA health care personnel shall notify that person or entity of the community residential care facility's disapproval and request permission to assist in removing the veteran from the community residential care facility.
( c ) If the hearing official determines that a community residential care facility fails to comply with the standards set forth in § 17.63 of this part and determines that the community residential care facility shall have an additional time period to remedy the noncompliance, the hearing official shall review at the end of the time period the evidence of the community residential care facility's compliance with the standards which were to have been met by the end of that time period and determine if the community residential care facility complies with the standards. If the community residential care facility fails to comply with these or any other standards, the procedures set forth in §§ 17.66-17.71 of this part shall be followed.
[54 FR 20842, May 15, 1989. Redesignated and amended at 61 FR 21965, 21967, May 13, 1996]
- Office of the Spokesperson
- Briefing Schedule
- Press Briefings
- Press Releases
- Public Schedule
- 2017-2021 Archive

HomeOffice of the Spokesperson...Public Schedule

# 						Public Schedule					

							Collection of U.S. Department of State Public Schedules. 						

		Subscribe		

943 items
Clear All Filters

## View collection by:

Select a Year2024202320222021

Select a MonthJanuaryFebruaryMarchAprilMayJuneJulyAugustSeptemberOctoberNovemberDecember

Select a Release TypePublic Schedule

Select a Bureau/OfficeDeputy Secretary of StateOffice of the SpokespersonThe Secretary of State

          -    Public Schedule  		Public Schedule – April 25, 2024	  April 24, 2024 
          -    Public Schedule  		Public Schedule – April 24, 2024	  April 24, 2024 
          -    Public Schedule  		Public Schedule – April 23, 2024	  April 22, 2024 
          -    Public Schedule  		Public Schedule – April 22, 2024	  April 22, 2024 
          -    Public Schedule  		Public Schedule – April 19, 2024	  April 18, 2024 
          -    Public Schedule  		Public Schedule – April 18, 2024	  April 17, 2024 
          -    Public Schedule  		Public Schedule – April 17, 2024	  April 16, 2024 
          -    Public Schedule  		Public Schedule – April 16, 2024	  April 15, 2024 
          -    Public Schedule  		Public Schedule – April 15, 2024	  April 15, 2024 
          -    Public Schedule  		Public Schedule – April 15, 2024	  April 14, 2024 

previous page123456…95next page

Back to Top
<PAGE>


      CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                                   PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


I,  Garry  L.  Anselmo,  Chief  Executive  Officer  and Chief Financial Officer,
certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of  the  Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of
Silverado  Gold  Mines Ltd. for the quarterly period ended August 31, 2002 fully
complies  with  the  requirements  of  Section  13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange  Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Quarterly Report
on  Form 10-QSB fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition
and  results  of  operations  of  Silverado  Gold  Mines  Ltd.


                            By:    /s/ GARRY  L.  ANSELMO
                                   ----------------------
                            Name:   GARRY  L.  ANSELMO
                            Title:  Chief  Executive  Officer
                                    and  Chief  Financial  Officer
                            Date:   October 9, 2002
#### Wurfel *v.*The State.

[No. 20,807.

Filed October 4, 1906.]

Appeal and *Eeeoe.—Record.—Motion for New Trial.—Bill of*Exceptions.—A motion for a new trial, contained only in the bill of exceptions in the transcript on appeal, is not a part of the record; and error assigned on the overruling of same cannot be considered.

From Clark Circuit Court; *C. W. Cook,*Special Judge.

Prosecution by the State of Indiana against John Wurfel. From a judgment of conviction, defendant appeals.

*Affirmed.*

*James*W. *Fortune,*for appellant.

*Charles*W. *Miller,*Attorney-General, *C. C. Hadley, H. M. Dowling*and *W. C. Geake,*for the State.

Montgomery, J.

Appellant was convicted of an assault and battery with intent to commit rape. A number of alleged errors, which might properly have been urged as grounds for a new trial, have been assigned. The only proper assignment of errors is the overruling of appellant’s motion for a new trial. The motion for a new trial is not embraced in the record proper, but only in what purports to be a bill of exceptions. This bill of exceptions is not identified, but is merely attached to the transcript, and there is no record entry of the filing of the same. If it were conceded that this bill of exceptions constituted a part of the record, which we need not and do not decide, still it' must be held that a motion for a new trial, which is copied in such bill, but does not appear elsewhere, is not properly a part of the record. *Wilson*v. *State*(1901), 156 Ind. 631, and cases cited.

In the absence of the motion for a new trial, no error is made to appear, and the judgment is affirmed.
#### § 1.701 Contact person for missing children official mail program.

The Department of Veterans Affairs contact person for the Missing Children Official Mail Program is: Mrs. Roslynd R. Stewart, Information Management Service (045A4), Office of Policy and Program Assistance, Office of Information Resources Management, Office of Management, Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420-0001. Telephone: (202) 565-8949.

(Authority: 39 U.S.C. 3220(a)(2), 5 U.S.C. 301)

[60 FR 48388, Sept. 19, 1995]
```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 205 (Wednesday, October 23, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 63279]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-24968]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Third Meeting: RTCA Tactical Operations Committee (TOC)

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), U.S. Department of 
Transportation (DOT)

ACTION: Third Meeting Notice of RTCA Tactical Operations Committee.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of the 
third meeting of the RTCA Tactical Operations Committee.

DATES: The meeting will be held November 7, 2013 from 9 a.m.-3 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at RTCA Headquarters, 1150 18th 
Street NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The RTCA Secretariat, 1150 18th Street 
NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036, or by telephone at (202) 833-
9339, fax at (202) 833-9434, or Web site http://www.rtca.org. Andy 
Cebula, NAC Secretary can also be contacted at acebula@rtca.org or 202-
330-0652.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. No. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.), notice is 
hereby given for a meeting of the Tactical Operations Committee (TOC). 
The agenda will include the following:

November 19, 2013

 Opening of Meeting/Introduction of TOC Members
 Official Statement of Designated Federal Official
 Approval of July 23, 2013 Meeting Summary
 FAA Report
 Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) Activity Prioritization
 Regional Task Groups (RTGs)
 Reports on current activities underway by Regional Task 
Groups: Eastern, Central, Western
 VHF Omni-directional Range (VOR) Minimum Operating Network
 New Tasking: Obstacle Clearance
 Anticipated Issues for TOC consideration and action at the 
next meeting
 Other Business
 Adjourn

    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space 
availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public 
may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present 
statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in 
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Members of the public may 
present a written statement to the committee at any time.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on October 18, 2013.
Edith V. Parish,
Senior Advisor, Mission Support Services, Air Traffic Organization, 
Federal Aviation Administration.
[FR Doc. 2013-24968 Filed 10-22-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
```
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-17-00332-CV

KATRINA AHRENS,

Appellant

v.

DALLAS POLICE ASSOCIATION, DPA'S 

ASSIST THE OFFICER FOUNDATION, INC., 

FREDERICK FRAZIER, CITY OF DALLAS, 

AND ZAC PRODUCTS II, LLC,

Appellees

From the 249th District Court

Johnson County, Texas

Trial Court No. DC-C201700365

ORDER

The Reporter’s Record in this appeal was filed on November 7, 2017 and Clerk’s 

Record was filed on December 6, 2017. On January 4, 2018, appellant’s motion for 

extension of time to file her brief was filed in which appellant requested an extension of 

time to file her brief until after the Court decides its sua sponte-raised question of 

jurisdiction of this appeal. The motion was unopposed.
Ahrens v. Dallas Police Association Page 2

The Court has decided to carry the jurisdictional question until the briefing is 

completed. Accordingly, appellant’s motion for extension of time is denied. Appellant’s 

brief is due 30 days from the date of this order.

PER CURIAM

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Motion denied

Order issued and filed August 1, 2018