alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Editorial Note on Part 3
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 3 appear at 61 FR 7216, Feb. 27, 1996; 62 FR 35970, July 3, 1997; 62 FR 47532, Sept. 9, 1997; and 67 FR 46868, July 17, 2002.

§ 3.806 Death gratuity; certification. ( a ) Where a veteran dies on or after January 1, 1957, and during the 120-day period which begins on the day following the date of his or her discharge or release from active duty, active duty for training, or inactive training duty, the Department of Veterans Affairs will certify that fact to the Secretary concerned if the Department of Veterans Affairs determines on the basis of a claim filed with it that: ( 1 ) Death resulted from: ( i ) Disease or injury incurred or aggravated while on such active duty or active duty for training; or
( ii ) Injury incurred or aggravated while on such inactive duty training; and
( 2 ) The deceased person was discharged or released from such service under conditions other than dishonorable.
( b ) In all cases, other than listed in paragraph (a) of this section, the certification will be furnished at the request of the Secretary concerned.
( c ) For the purposes of this section, line of duty is not a factor. The standards, criteria, and procedures for determining incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury under paragraph (a) of this section are those applicable under disability and death compensation laws administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs.
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 1323)
[26 FR 1605, Feb. 24, 1961, as amended at 40 FR 54245, Nov. 21, 1975]
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2474 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2474

To provide for an increased maximum civil penalty for violations under 
                    the Consumer Product Safety Act.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 24, 2007

   Mr. Rush introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide for an increased maximum civil penalty for violations under 
                    the Consumer Product Safety Act.

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

SECTION 1. CIVIL PENALTIES OF THE CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION.

     Section 20(a)(1) of the Consumer Product Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 
2069(a)(1)) is amended by striking ``$1,250,000'' each place it appears 
and inserting ``$20,000,000''.
                                 <all>
```
1 Filed 3/7/13 P. v. Vargas CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED



## COPY

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and pa rties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for pu blication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered publi shed for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Sacramento)

----

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

DOMINGO GARCIA VARGAS,

Defendant and Appellant. C067801

(Super. Ct. No. 09F05780)

ORDER MODIFYING OPINION

[NO CHANGE IN JUDGMENT]

THE COURT: It is ordered that the opinion filed here in on February 19, 20 13, be modified as

follows: On page 11, the first pa ragraph of section II, in th e first sentence “K.B.” is changed to “S.G.” so the sentence reads:2 Defendant was convicted of both forcib le sexual penetration (§ 289(a)(1)) and

assault with intent to co mmit forcible sexual penetr ation (§§ 220/289(a)(1)) of

S.G.

There is no change in the judgment.

HULL , J.

We concur:

RAYE , P. J.

ROBIE , J.
Exhibit 31

		Certifications Under Rule 13a-14(a)/l5d-14(a)

	I, Henry C. Pao, certify that:

 	1.	I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Supertex,
 	Inc., a California corporation;

	2.	Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain
	any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material
	fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
	circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading
	with respect to the period covered by this quarterly report;

	3.	Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other
	financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present
	in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations
	and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented
	in this quarterly report;

	4.	I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure
	controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
	15d-15(e)) for the registrant and I have:

		(a)	designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or
	caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed
	under my supervision, to ensure that material information relating to
	the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known
	to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period
	in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

		(b)	evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's
	disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report my
	conclusion about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and
	procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based
	on such evaluation; and

		(c)	disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's
	internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the
	registrant's most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected,
	or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal
	control over financial reporting; and

	5.	I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of
	internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors
	and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons
	performing the equivalent function):

		(a)	all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in
	the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting
	which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's
	ability to record, process, summarize, and report financial data and
	have identified for the registrant's auditors any material weaknesses
	in internal controls; and

		(b)	any fraud, whether or not material, that involves
	management or other employees who have a significant role in the
	registrant's internal control over financial reporting.


Date: February 10, 2004		      /s/  Henry C. Pao
				      ____________________________
				      Henry C. Pao, Ph.D.
				      Chief Executive Officer and
				      Chief Financial Officer
				     (Principal Executive and Financial Officer)
# Official Journal C 169/2014

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 169 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 575 June 2014 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 169

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 575 June 2014

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM MEMBER STATES |
| 2014/C 169/01 | List of the bilateral investment agreements referred to in Article 4(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1219/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 establishing transitional arrangements for bilateral investment agreements between Member States and third countries | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM MEMBER STATES

2014/C 169/01

List of the bilateral investment agreements referred to in Article 4(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1219/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 establishing transitional arrangements for bilateral investment agreements between Member States and third countries

1

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
Editorial Note on Part 3
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 3 appear at 61 FR 7216, Feb. 27, 1996; 62 FR 35970, July 3, 1997; 62 FR 47532, Sept. 9, 1997; and 67 FR 46868, July 17, 2002.

§ 3.2501 Supplemental claims. Except as otherwise provided, a claimant or his or her authorized representative, if any, who disagrees with a prior VA decision may file a supplemental claim (see § 3.1(p)(2)) by submitting in writing or electronically a complete application (see § 3.160(a)) on a form prescribed by the Secretary any time after the agency of original jurisdiction issues notice of a decision, regardless of whether the claim is pending (see *§*3.160(c)) or has become finally adjudicated (see *§*3.160(d)). If new and relevant evidence is presented or secured with respect to the supplemental claim, the agency of original jurisdiction will readjudicate the claim taking into consideration all of the evidence of record. If new and relevant evidence is not presented or secured, the agency of original jurisdiction will issue a decision finding that there was insufficient evidence to readjudicate the claim. In determining whether new and relevant evidence is presented or secured, VA will consider any VA treatment records reasonably identified by the claimant and any evidence received by VA after VA issued notice of a decision on the claim and while the evidentiary record was closed (see 3.103(c)). ( a ) *New and relevant evidence.* The new and relevant standard will not impose a higher evidentiary threshold than the previous new and material evidence standard under § 3.156(a). ( 1 ) *Definition.* New evidence is evidence not previously part of the actual record before agency adjudicators. Relevant evidence is information that tends to prove or disprove a matter at issue in a claim. Relevant evidence includes evidence that raises a theory of entitlement that was not previously addressed.
( 2 ) *Receipt prior to notice of a decision.* New and relevant evidence received before VA issues its decision on a supplemental claim will be considered as having been filed in connection with the claim.
( b ) *Evidentiary record.* The evidentiary record for a supplemental claim includes all evidence received by VA before VA issues notice of a decision on the supplemental claim. For VA to readjudicate the claim, the evidentiary record must include new and relevant evidence that was not of record as of the date of notice of the prior decision.
( c ) *Duty to assist.* Upon receipt of a substantially complete supplemental claim, VA's duty to assist in the gathering of evidence under § 3.159 of this part is triggered and includes any such assistance that may help secure new and relevant evidence as defined in paragraph (a) of this section to complete the supplemental claim application.
( d ) *Date of filing.* The filing date of a supplemental claim is determined according to § 3.155, with the exception of the intent to file rule found in § 3.155(b) which applies to initial claims.
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501, 5103A(h), 5108)
[83 FR 172, Jan. 18, 2019]
CURTESY.

[Clermont Circuit Court,

April Term, 1885.]

Cox, Smith and Swing, JJ.

#### Hudick v. Higdon.

Execution Sate oe an Estate by Curtesy.

A levy of execution against an estate by curtesy while heirs of the wife are living was valid, under section 8108, Revised Statutes, although the levy cannot be enforced during the life of an heir, but under the act of April 14, 1884, giving the life tenant a right to sell, the levy may be enforced. This act does not effect vested rights.

Arpead from Common Pleas Court of Clermont county.

Ashburn & Hulick, for plaintiff.

Higdon, and Mallon & Coffey, for assignee of Bussing & Co.

Cox, J.

The wife of Higdon was the owner, in fee simple, as her separate estate, of a tract of land in Clermont county, Ohio. She died about four years ago, leaving her husband and several children surviving her, all of whom are still living. After her death the assignee of Bussing & Co., recovered a judgment in the court of common pleas of Clermont county against Higdon and levied an execution on his life estate in said land. At the time of the rendition of said judgment and of the levy, section 3108, of the Revised Statutes, vol. 1, page 624, providing as to separate real property of the wife and the interest of her husband therein after her death, contained these words: “This section shall not effect the

estate by the curtesy of a husband in the real property of the wife after her decease; but during the life of such wife, or any heir of her body, such estate shall not be taken by any process of law for the payment of his debts, or be conveyed or incumbered by him, unless she join therein with him in the manner prescribed by law in regard to her own estate.”

On April 14, 1884, *81 O. L., 209-10, section 3108 was repealed, and reenacted, leaving out entirely the language above quoted, but providing in section 3112, that the provisions of section 3108 shall not affect any rights which vested prior to May 1, 1861.

On this state of facts, the court held' — that up to the time of the repeal of section 3108, Revised Statutes, April 14, 1884, the assignee of Bussing & Co., while he had a right to *levy*his execution on the said life estate of Higdon, could not enforce the same during the life of any heir of the body of Mrs. Higdon; but that on the repeal of that section and its reenactment without any such provision above referred to therein, the right to enforce said levy became absolute. And further, that the saving as to vested rights does not operate to prevent such enforcement. The effect of such legislation is to give a tenant by the curtesy a higher or greater interest in the land so held by him, for now he *may*sell or incumber it by mortgage, which he could not before, and the repeal ot an act which exempted said estate from execution, or prevented the sale or incumbrance thereof, does not affect any vested rights of the tenant, or of the heirs of the wife.

*

Note — The law of April 14, 1884, in regard to curtesy, referred to in this decision, was repealed by an Act of April 16,1885.
###### Editorial Note on Part 3

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 3 appear at 61 FR 7216, Feb. 27, 1996; 62 FR 35970, July 3, 1997; 62 FR 47532, Sept. 9, 1997; and 67 FR 46868, July 17, 2002.

#### § 3.1713 Eligibility based on status before 1958.

When any person dies who had a status under any law in effect on December 31, 1957, that afforded entitlement to burial benefits, burial benefits will be paid, if otherwise in order, even though such status does not meet the service requirements of 38 U.S.C. chapter 23.

(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 2305)
#### § 21.9510 Claims, VA's duty to assist, and time limits.

The provisions of subpart B of this part apply to claims filed for educational assistance under 38 U.S.C. chapter 33 with respect to VA's responsibilities upon receipt of claim, VA's duty to assist claimants in obtaining evidence, and time limits.

(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 3323(c), 5101, 5102, 5103, 5103A)
§ 21.6082 Completing the plan. ( a ) *Completing the plan.* If the VA determines that the veteran is unable to complete the program within the time limits of the plan after training has begun and the conditions for extension are not met, the long-range vocational goal of the veteran must be reevaluated, and another vocational goal selected which can be completed within the limits prescribed in § 21.6054 and § 21.6072 of this part. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 1524(b)(1))
( b ) *Employment assistance when training is not completed under 38 U.S.C. chapter 15 .* A plan for employment assistance may be implemented under § 21.6040(b) of this part even though the veteran's vocational training program has not been, or will not be, completed under this temporary program, provided the other requirements for participation in the program are met.
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 1524(b)(3))
#### § 17.51 Emergency use of Department of Defense, Public Health Service or other Federal hospitals.

Hospital care in facilities operated by the Department of Defense or the Public Health Service (or any other agency of the U.S. Government) which do not have beds allocated for the care of Department of Veterans Affairs patients may be authorized subject to the limitations enumerated in § 17.50 only in emergency circumstances for any veteran otherwise eligible for hospital care under 38 U.S.C. 1710 or 38 CFR 17.46.

[33 FR 19010, Dec. 20, 1968. Redesignated and amended at 61 FR 21965, 21966, May 13, 1996]
#### Mary Mensching, Respondent, *v.*James H. Curtin, Appellant.

Appeal from; orders of Special Term, denying defendant’s motion to servé amended answer, and also further appeal from a judgment against defendant.

Biehard E. Price, for appellant.

Hanford S. Weed, for respondent.

*Per Guriam.*

Orders appealed from affirmed, with costs.

Present: Eitzsimows, Ch. J., and O’Dwyer, J.

Orders affirmed, with costs.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

v. 

RAMON GOMEZ-MALDONADO, a/k/a 

Fidel, a/k/a Pepe, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

No. 15-5054 

(D.C. No. 4:14-CR-00132-GKF-1) 

(N.D. Okla.)

 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

 

Before HARTZ, EBEL, and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges. 

 

 Pursuant to a plea agreement with a broad appeal waiver, Ramon GomezMaldonado pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to distribute 50 grams or more 

of methamphetamine. The district court sentenced him to 121 months’ 

imprisonment, which was at the low end of the advisory guideline range of 121 to 

151 months. Despite his appeal waiver, Mr. Gomez-Maldonado filed a notice of 

 

* This panel has determined that oral argument would not materially assist the 

determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The 

case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment 

is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, 

and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent 

with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

September 17, 2015

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court
- 2 - 

appeal. The government has moved to enforce the appeal waiver under United States 

v. Hahn, 359 F.3d 1315 (10th Cir. 2004) (en banc) (per curiam). 

 Counsel for Mr. Gomez-Maldonado filed a response stating a belief that 

opposition to the motion to enforce would be frivolous and moved to withdraw. 

See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). Given these circumstances, we 

gave Mr. Gomez-Maldonado an opportunity to file a pro se response to the motion, 

see id. He did not file a response. 

 In Hahn, 359 F.3d at 1325, we held that we would enforce appeal waivers as 

long as three conditions were met: (1) the matter on appeal “falls within the scope of 

the waiver”; (2) the defendant-appellant “knowingly and voluntarily waived his 

appellate rights”; and (3) enforcing the waiver will not “result in a miscarriage of 

justice.” We have conducted an independent examination of the record, see Anders, 

386 U.S. at 744, and we agree with the government that Mr. Gomez-Maldonado’s 

appeal falls within the scope of the waiver, the waiver was knowing and voluntary, 

and enforcing the waiver will not result in a miscarriage of justice. Accordingly, we 

grant the motion to enforce the appeal waiver and dismiss this appeal. We also grant 

counsel’s motion to withdraw. 

 Entered for the Court 

 Per Curiam
From:	From	Above	Rc	(Solomon	Nieves)

24511	Daisy	Run	San	Antonio,	TX	78255 Date:	7/29 /15 U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket **,** Operations West Building Ground Floor, Room w12 - 140 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., W ashington, DC 20590 Dear	Sir	or Madam: In	response	to	the	email	dated	July	27 th 2015,	The	following	information	is	provided. The	type	of	aircraft	being	operated	will	be	as	follows	with	the	total	maximum	take	off weights	including	all	payloads	(i.e.	cameras	and	batteries). DJI	Phantom	2 Vision	Plus	Quad	rotor	aircraft Total	maximum	take	off	weight	of	2.7lbs DJI	Inspire	1	Quad	rotor	aircraft Total	maximum	take	off	weight	of	6.5lbs DJI	Spread	Wings	S900	Hex	rotor	aircraft Total	Maximum	take	off	weight	of	18.1lbs DJI	Spread	Wings	S1000	Oct o	rotor	Aircraft Total	Maximum	take	off	weight	of	24.25lbs As	noted	above,	ALL	aircraft	fall	well	below	the	55lbs	weight	maximum	and	have	all	been approved	in	prior	awarded	exemption	request.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT 

FLIGHTLINE GROUND, INC., 

Petitioner, 

v. 

MICHAEL P. HUERTA, 

ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL 

AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

Respondent. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) CASE NO. 15-60176 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

· · · · · itEPRESENTATIONSTATEMENTOFPETITIONER'SCOtJNSEL 

·. · COMES NOW 1Man Armstrong, attorney for Petitioner, Flightline Ground, 

Inc., ~ursuant,to'sTH CIR. R. 12, and Fed. R. App. P.l2(b), and certifies that Mr. 

Armstrong represents the Petitioner, Flightline Ground, Inc., in these proceedings. 

Respectfully submitted this the 16th day ()fMaroh; 2015. 

.'i '+• -, -' .. ;_- '-- .,q -·- 1 ; ;_; ;,; 

2900 Chamblee-TuckerRbad 

Buildjng5, Suite 350 . 

Atlanta, GA 30341 

404-451-0313 -Office 

404-451-0317 :_Fax ' ., '' · 

ala:p,@~~naq;nstronglaw.co~. , , ;, .. ' . .,, .· 

Georgia Bar No. 0220 

· CoitnselforFNght~tne Ground, Inc . 

1 

t i. ' . 

' 
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT 

FLIGHTLINE GROUND, INC., 

Petitioner, 

v. 

MICHAEL P. HUERTA, 

ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL 

AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, 

Respondent. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) CASEN0.15-60176 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

·-~~·-~--~---~-----·- -~ -··--~·-··----~~~-·-·~,--·--·------··-·-------~---·------··-·--·--·---~------ ------·--·------------~------------· .. ·-----------------.. - - - - - ---

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

The undersigned, in compliance with 5rn CIR. R. 9.4, certifies that a 

complete copy of the above and foregoing Representation Statement of Petitioner's 

Counsel, was served by First Class U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, on the following: 

Reggie Govan, Esq. 

Office ofthe Chief Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue SW 

Washington, DC 20591 

Gerard G. Metzger, Esq. 

Charles T. Curtis, Esq. 

Gerald G. Metzger, APLC 

829 Baronne Street 

NewOrleans,LA 70113 

Brandon Brown, Esq. 

Louisiana DOT 

1201 Capital Access Road 

Office S304/S305 

Baton Rouge, LA 70804 

J.E. Murdock, III, Esq. 

5034 Nebraska Avenue 

Washington, DC 20008 

2 
This the 161

h day ofMarch, 2015. 

2900 Chamblee-Tucker Road 

Building 5, Suite 350 

Atlanta, GA 30341 

404-451-0313 -Office 

404-451-0317 -Fax 

alan@alanannstronglaw.com 

Georgia Bar No. 02711'il-'i---' 

Counsel for Flightline Oround, Inc. 

3