alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
December 29, 2014 

Mr. James Ferrandini 

President and Lead UAS Operator 

Upward Aerial 

208 San Rafael Avenue 

San Rafael, CA 94901 

Dear Mr. Ferrandini: 

This letter is to inform you that the following information is missing from your petition (Docket 

No. FAA-2014-0765). 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 Headquarters or 

electronically via e-mail to nia.daniels@faa.gov. 

 Describe the aircraft make and model for the proposed UAS operation. The description 

should include the size. 

 List the aircraft’s cruise speed. 

 Provide information regarding the radio frequency spectrum. This information can be 

located in the aircraft manual. 

 Provide description of proximity to airports. 

 Your petition references a pre-flight inspection. Describe the process used to determine if 

the UAS is airworthy and in safe condition for operation in the NAS. 

 Your petition references an aircraft operations manual; however, it was not submitted for 

the record. Please provide a copy of the manual. 

Please provide the additional information by January 12, 2015. 
2 

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

Sincerely, 

Nia Daniels 

Program Analyst
In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit ____________

No. 05-1225

MICHAEL A. SVEUM,

Petitioner-Appellant,

v.

JUDY P. SMITH,

Respondent-Appellee.

____________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Wisconsin.

No. 00-C-563-C—Barbara B. Crabb, Chief Judge.

____________

SUBMITTED FEBRUARY 25, 2005—DECIDED MARCH 31, 2005

____________

Before POSNER, WOOD, and EVANS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. The district court denied Michael Sveum’s

habeas corpus petition in December 2000. Four years later,

Sveum filed a motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) arguing

that the district court had improperly denied his petition by

not holding an evidentiary hearing on his ineffective

assistance of counsel claim. The district court concluded that

Sveum’s motion was an unauthorized successive collateral

attack, dismissed the motion for lack of jurisdiction, and

later denied Sveum’s motion for reconsideration. 
2 No. 05-1225

In deciding whether to grant Sveum’s request for leave

to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, the district court

struggled with the issue of whether a petitioner who files an

unauthorized collateral attack needs a certificate of appealability in order to be allowed to appeal. Jones v. Braxton,

392 F.3d 683 (4th Cir. 2004), holds that a district court’s dismissal of a motion on the ground that it is an unauthorized

successive collateral attack constitutes a final order within

the scope of 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c), and therefore a certificate of

appealability is required. Id. at 688. We agree. Were this not

the rule, a prisoner could circumvent the certificate requirement just by labeling his successive collateral attack a Rule

60(b) motion. Sveum’s Rule 60(b) motion was a mislabeled

habeas corpus petition reasserting his ineffective assistance

of counsel claim. Dunlap v. Litscher, 301 F.3d 873, 875 (7th

Cir. 2002). He must therefore obtain a certificate of appealability in order to be able to proceed. Jones v. Braxton, supra,

392 F.3d at 688. And because this is an unauthorized successive collateral attack, Sveum cannot satisfy the criteria for

a certificate of appealability, so we DENY his request for one.

A true Copy:

Teste:

 _____________________________

Clerk of the United States Court of 

Appeals for the Seventh Circuit 

USCA-02-C-0072—3-31-05
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 234 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 234

     To make funds available for Pacific Salmon emergency disaster 
                              assistance.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 4, 2007

 Mr. Thompson of California (for himself, Mr. DeFazio, Ms. Hooley, Mr. 
Farr, Ms. Eshoo, Mrs. Capps, Mr. Lantos, Ms. Zoe Lofgren of California, 
 Ms. Woolsey, Mr. Wu, Mr. George Miller of California, and Ms. Matsui) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                           Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To make funds available for Pacific Salmon emergency disaster 
                              assistance.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Pacific Salmon Emergency Disaster 
Assistance Act of 2007''.

SEC. 2. PACIFIC SALMON EMERGENCY DISASTER ASSISTANCE.

    (a) Appropriation of Funds.--In addition to any other funds 
available for such purpose, there is appropriated to the Secretary of 
Commerce $60,400,000 to make a lump sum payment to the Pacific States 
Marine Fisheries Commission. The Commission shall distribute such 
amount among fishing communities, Indian tribes, small businesses, 
including fishermen, fish processors, and related businesses, 
individuals, and other entities for assistance for the economic and 
social effects of the commercial fishery failure designated under 
section 312(a) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 
Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1861a(a)) to mitigate the economic losses to 
such communities, tribes, businesses, individuals or other entities 
caused by closures or other restrictions on the harvesting of Klamath 
River Fall Chinook salmon.
    (b) Limitation on Administrative Expenses.--The Secretary of 
Commerce may not use more than 4 percent of the amount appropriated 
under this section for administrative expenses.
    (c) Unused Funds.--Any amount appropriated pursuant to this section 
that is not expended or otherwise obligated for the purpose described 
in subsection (a) shall be returned to the Treasury of the United 
States.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 32.1


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

In connection with the Amendment No. 1 to the Quarterly
Report of Research Frontiers Incorporated (the Company)  on
Form 10-Q/A for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2003
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), I, Robert L. Saxe, Chairman and Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

(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 issuer.


/s/  Robert L. Saxe
     Robert L. Saxe
     Chairman and Chief
     Executive Officer
     October 28, 2004
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

Appellate case name: Virginia Sosa v. Auto Club Indemnity Co.

Appellate case numbers: 01-21-00312-CV

Trial court case number: 1161202

Trial court: County Civil Court at Law No. 3 of Harris County

Appellant Virginia Sosa has filed a combined motion for rehearing and for en banc 

reconsideration. It is ordered that the motion for rehearing is denied.

Judge’s signature: /s/ April L. Farris

 Acting for the Court

Panel consists of: Justices Landau, Guerra, and Farris.

Date: December 15, 2022
PUBLIC LAW 107–93—DEC. 21, 2001 115 STAT. 899

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 2061:

SENATE REPORTS: No. 107–102 (Comm. on Governmental Affairs).

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 147 (2001):

Sept. 20, considered and passed House.

Dec. 6, considered and passed Senate.

Æ

Public Law 107–93

107th Congress

An Act

To amend the charter of Southeastern University of the District of Columbia.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. AMENDMENTS TO CHARTER OF SOUTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY REGARDING BOARD OF TRUSTEES.

Section 3 of the Act entitled ‘‘An Act for the relief of the

Southeastern University of the Young Men’s Christian Association

of the District of Columbia’’, approved August 19, 1937 (50 Stat.

697), as amended by section 1 of the Act entitled ‘‘An Act to

amend the charter of Southeastern University of the District of

Columbia’’, approved October 10, 1966 (80 Stat. 883), is amended—

(1) in the first sentence, by striking ‘‘, one-third of whom’’

and all that follows and inserting a period; and

(2) in the second sentence, by striking ‘‘elected for a term’’

and inserting ‘‘elected by the board for a term’’.

SEC. 2. TREATMENT OF CURRENT TRUSTEES.

The amendment made by section 1 shall not affect the term

of office of any individual serving on the Board of Trustees of

Southeastern University as of the date of the enactment of this

Act.

Approved December 21, 2001.

Dec. 21, 2001

[H.R. 2061]
#### § 74.4 Who does CVE consider to control a veteran-owned small business?

Control is determined in accordance with 13 CFR part 125. However, where 13 CFR part 125 is limited to SDVOSBs, CVE applies the same control criteria to firms seeking verified VOSB status.

[83 FR 48230, Sept. 24, 2018]
#### § 4.24 Correspondence.

All correspondence relative to the interpretation of the schedule for rating disabilities, requests for advisory opinions, questions regarding lack of clarity or application to individual cases involving unusual difficulties, will be addressed to the Director, Compensation Service. A clear statement will be made of the point or points upon which information is desired, and the complete case file will be simultaneously forwarded to Central Office. Rating agencies will assure themselves that the recent report of physical examination presents an adequate picture of the claimant's condition. Claims in regard to which the schedule evaluations are considered inadequate or excessive, and errors in the schedule will be similarly brought to attention.

[41 FR 11292, Mar. 18, 1976, as amended at 79 FR 2100, Jan. 13, 2014]
# Official Journal C 13A/20 J

| | ISSN 1725-2423 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 13A |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5220 January 2009 |

ISSN 1725-2423

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 13A

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5220 January 2009

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | V   Announcements |
| | ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES |
| | European Medicines Agency |
| 2009/C 013A/01 | Recruitment for the European Medicines Agency (London) | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

V   Announcements

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

European Medicines Agency

2009/C 013A/01

Recruitment for the European Medicines Agency (London)

1

---

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

EN
Dismiss and Opinion Filed September 14, 2023

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-23-00563-CR

EBBY DEWAYNE WADE, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 397th Judicial District Court

Grayson County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 073026

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Carlyle, Smith, and Kennedy

Opinion by Justice Kennedy

Ebby Dewayne Wade brings this appeal, but we lack jurisdiction because 

there is no judgment or other appealable order in the record.

The clerk’s record filed July 21, 2023, shows appellant was indicted for 

murder on February 22, 2021. On May 24, 2023, appellant filed his “Application 

for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Seeking a Right to Proceed Pro Se and Bond 

Reduction.” On June 5, 2023, appellant filed a notice of appeal stating the trial 

court’s “denial, rejection and/or failure to conduct and hold the lawfully proper 

Writ/Evidentiary hearing is in violation of” appellant’s constitutional and statutory 
–2–

rights. On July 19, 2023, the official court reporter for the 397th District Court 

informed this Court that no hearings had been held regarding appellant’s 

“complaint.” The record contains no ruling on appellant’s application for habeas 

corpus. 

On July 25, 2023, this Court sent appellant a letter notifying appellant that 

absent a ruling by the trial court on the application for writ of habeas corpus, we had 

no jurisdiction over this appeal. We requested appellant to file a letter brief by 

August 14, 2023, addressing whether the trial court had signed an appealable order 

in this case. Appellant has not responded to our letter.

We have no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal unless the trial court has entered

a judgment or appealable order. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(b), 26.2(a)(1); State v.

Sanavongxay, 407 S.W.3d 252, 259 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012); Henderson v. State, 

153 S.W.3d 735, 735–36 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2005, no pet.). Because appellant has 

not identified any judgment or other appealable order before this Court, we conclude 

we lack jurisdiction over this appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for lack

of jurisdiction.

230563f.u05

Do Not Publish

TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b) /Nancy E. Kennedy/

NANCY KENNEDY

JUSTICE
–3–

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

EBBY DEWAYNE WADE, 

Appellant

No. 05-23-00563-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 397th Judicial 

District Court, Grayson County, 

Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 073026.

Opinion delivered by Justice 

Kennedy. Justices Carlyle and Smith 

participating.

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED for 

lack of jurisdiction.

Judgment entered this 14th day of September 2023.
#### EDWIN ACKERMANN, Respondent, v. ALBERT C. HAUMUELLER, Admr. of HENRY HAUMUELLER, Deceased, Appellant.

St. Louis Court of Appeals.

Argued and Submitted March 11, 1910.

Opinion Filed May 3, 1910.

GUARDIAN AND WARD: Final Settlement: Conclusiveness: Collateral Attack. Where the claim of a ward for wages received while working for others and turned over to the guardian was not included in the final settlement of the guardian, the judgment approving the settlement must be attacked directly, and not collaterally, as by an action by the ward against the administrator of the deceased guardian.

Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit *Court.*— Hon. *Geo. H.*Williams, Judge.

Eeversed and remanded *(with*directions).

*Warren D. Isenberg*for appellant.

*Alexander B. Bussell*for respondent.

REYNOLDS, P. J.

The facts in this case as to the guardianship, settlement and discharge of the guardian are the same as in that of Elsie Ackermann against the same defendant, the difference, however, being that the claimant, a grandson of Henry Haumueller, presents for allowance against the estate of his grandfather, who was also his guardian, an account for wages received and earned by him while working for others, and which he had turned over to his grandfather while guardian. The same points made by counsel in the former case are made in this and the arguments are identical, the two cases being argued and submitted together. We have stated in the opinion filed in that case of Elsie Ackermann against this defendant, the law which we think also covers this case and by which these wages *428turned over to the guardian, are held to be of the estate of the ward, and should have been taken up and accounted for as of the assets of the estate, as of the trust fund in the hands of Henry Haumueller as guardian, and as of the funds of the ward’s estate and should have been included in the settlement made by the guardian. If it is true that they were not included in that settlement, the judgment approving it. must be attacked directly and cannot be attacked collaterally, as is sought to be done here. For the reasons stated in the case of Elsie Ackermann against this same defendant, the judgment of the circuit court is reversed and the cause remanded to that court with directions to certify to the probate court a dismissal of the plaintiff’s claim; this without prejudice to the right of the plaintiff to bring and prosecute any other action on that claim that he may deem advisable.

All concur.
41488.

#### OXFORD CONSTRUCTION COMPANY v. CITY OF ALBANY et al.

Decided March 29, 1966.

*Watson, Keenan, Spence •& Lowe, G. Stuart Watson,*for plaintiff in error.

*Divine & Busbee, H. G. Rawls,*contra.

Eberhardt, Judge.

Our judgment in 112 Ga. App. 654 (145 SE2d 737) having been reversed by the Supreme Court in *City of Albany v. Oxford Construction Co.,*221 Ga. 872 (148 SE2d ), we hereby vacate our judgment and pursuant to and in accord with the judgment of the Supreme Court the judgment of the trial court is hereby

*Affirmed.*

*Nichols, P. J., and Panneil, J., concur.*
#### Jacob Janos et al., Respondents, *v.*Henry F. Samstag et al., Appellants.

Appeal from judgment of the Municipal Court of the city of New York, borough of Manhattan.

Rose & Putzel, for appellants.

■ J. Callahan, for respondents.

*Per Curiam.*

There is neither allegation nor proof with respect to the residence of the defendants.

As the jurisdiction of the court depends upon the residence of the defendants within the territorial limits of the city of New York, as now constituted, and as such jurisdiction must affirmatively appear upon the record, it follows that the judgment herein must be reversed. Tyroler v. Gummersbach, 28 Misc. Rep. 151.

As, however, the question was first raised on appeal, no costs will be awarded in directing a new trial. Willis v. Parker, 30 Misc. Rep. 750; 62 N. Y. Supp. 1078.

Present: Beekman, P. J., Giegerich and O’Gorman, JJ.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, without costs.
#### Christopher Mooney, as Executor, Etc., Landlord-Respondent, *v.*Patrick McGuirk, Tenant-Appellant.

Appear from final order in summary proceedings, entered "in'the Municipal Court of the city of Hew York, tenth district, borough- of Manhattan; also from an order denying the tenant’s motion to open his default.

John T. Booth, for appellant.

Thomas J. Purdy, for respondent.

O’Gorman, J.

The validity of the final order is assailed by reason of the omission in the record of a certificate showing that the person who served the precept was duly authorized so to do by the justice. The objection, however, is not well taken. In such a case it will be presumed, where the contrary does not appear, that the justice gave the requisite authority to the process server. Hess v. Smith, 16 Misc. Rep. 55. The order, therefore, cannot be impeached for want of jurisdiction.

The justice erred, however, in assuming that the court was without power to entertain the tenant’s motion to open the default. Although it was decided in Cochran v. Reich, 20 Misc. Rep. 593, that a justice of the District Court had no power to open a default in summary proceedings, this is no longer the law. Hnder the statute as amended (Laws of 1896, chap. 748), such power may be exercised by a justice of the Municipal Court. As there is no appeal, however, from the order of the Municipal Court denying the motion, we cannot reverse for the error complained of. Sin*745sheimer v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co., 21 Misc. Rep. 46; Boyd v. Milone, 24 Misc. Rep. 734.

The appeal from the order denying tenant’s motion to open the default is dismissed, and the final order in the proceeding, affirmed, with costs.

Beekman, P. J., and Giegerioh, J., concur.

Appeal dismissed and final order affirmed, with costs.
---

|**Secondary Market Report** | **August 1998**
|--------------------------- | ---------------



---

### TABLE 6
Average Interest Rate for Home Construction Financing



---

`HUD/FHA *                          CONVENTIONAL               
                
                        Aug'98   Jul'98  Aug'97         Aug'98   Jul'98   Aug'97
                        ------   ------  ------         ------   ------   ------
Northeast               7.89%    7.79%    8.35%         8.09%    7.96%    8.35%
Middle Atlantic         7.70%    7.69%    8.27%         7.30%    7.40%    7.84%
Southeast               8.55%    8.85%    8.89%         8.59%    8.75%    8.98%
North Central           8.01%    8.11%    8.35%         7.95%    8.09%    8.32%
Southwest               8.46%    8.50%    9.28%         8.28%    8.31%    8.95%
West                    8.68%    8.52%    9.06%         9.03%    8.45%    9.01%
                                                                
United States           8.27%    8.27%    8.73%         8.31%    8.21%    8.67%

* Type of financing planned for permanent loans.								


*******************************************************************************************`

### TABLE 7 
National Percent of HUD Offices Reporting Adequate Construction Funds Available for Homes



---

`Aug'98          Jul'98          Aug'97
                        ------          ------          ------  
FHA-Insured              92%             87%             97%
Conventional             94%             87%             95%

These data are not based on actual transactions.  They are					
compiled from the best information available to HUD Field
Offices throughout the US.								


Data as of: August 1, 1998                                HQE: 8-25-98


HSG/FHA Home Page | Reports Menu | Email Us


Date Last Modified: 08/25/98`
# Disturbed Ground/Exposed Areas

$/acre- ear Control Efficiency EF (tons/yr-acre)

PM10 PM2.5 Cost ($/Ton) PM2.5 $0 Uncontrolled 0% 0.19 0.057 $0 $159,000 Water 40% 0.114 0.0342 $6,973,684 $4,356 MgCI 50% 0.095 0.0285 $152,842 $43,560 Chemicals 50% 0.095 0.0285 $1,528,421 $5,500 Veggetation 95% 0.0095 0.00285 $101,570 $65,340 Paving 100% 0 0 $1,146,316

Apply water and other controls as needed to ensure opacity does not exceed 20% gased on current R307-309 rules. onsite and 10% at the property boundary.

# Storage Piles

Cost Control EF (Ib/acre-day) Emissions (tpy/acre) ($/Ton) Efficiency IPM10 PM2.5 PM10 PM2.5 PM2.5 

### $0 Uncontrolled $159,000 

### Water $4,356 MgCI $43,560 

### Chemicals 0% 6.3 40% 3.78 50% 3.15 50% 3.15 1.98 1.14975 0.36135 $0 1.188 0.68985 0.21681 $1,100,042 0.99 0.574875 0.180675 $24,110 0.99 0.574875 0.180675 $241,096

Apply water and other controls as needed to ensure opacity does not exceed 20% 

### gased on current R307-309 

### rules. c)nsite and 10% at the property boundary.