alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 121.141 Airplane flight manual. ( a ) Each certificate holder shall keep a current approved airplane flight manual for each type of airplane that it operates except for nontransport category airplanes certificated before January 1, 1965.
( b ) In each airplane required to have an airplane flight manual in paragraph (a) of this section, the certificate holder shall carry either the manual required by § 121.133, if it contains the information required for the applicable flight manual and this information is clearly identified as flight manual requirements, or an approved Airplane Manual. If the certificate holder elects to carry the manual required by § 121.133, the certificate holder may revise the operating procedures sections and modify the presentation of performance data, except for the information required by § 38.23 of this chapter identifying compliance with the fuel efficiency requirements of part 38 of this chapter, from the applicable flight manual if the revised operating procedures and modified performance data presentation are— ( 1 ) Approved by the Administrator; and
( 2 ) Clearly identified as airplane flight manual requirements.
[Doc. No. 28154, 60 FR 65927, Dec. 20, 1995, as amended by Docket No. FAA-2022-0241 Amdt. No.121-391, 89 FR 12663, Feb. 16, 2024]
§ 125.201 Inoperable instruments and equipment. ( a ) No person may take off an airplane with inoperable instruments or equipment installed unless the following conditions are met: ( 1 ) An approved Minimum Equipment List exists for that airplane.
( 2 ) The responsible Flight Standards office having certification responsibility has issued the certificate holder operations specifications authorizing operations in accordance with an approved Minimum Equipment List. The flight crew shall have direct access at all times prior to flight to all of the information contained in the approved Minimum Equipment List through printed or other means approved by the Administrator in the certificate holders operations specifications. An approved Minimum Equipment List, as authorized by the operations specifications, constitutes an approved change to the type design without requiring recertification.
( 3 ) The approved Minimum Equipment List must: ( i ) Be prepared in accordance with the limitations specified in paragraph (b) of this section.
( ii ) Provide for the operation of the airplane with certain instruments and equipment in an inoperable condition.
( 4 ) Records identifying the inoperable instruments and equipment and the information required by paragraph (a)(3)(ii) of this section must be available to the pilot.
( 5 ) The airplane is operated under all applicable conditions and limitations contained in the Minimum Equipment List and the operations specifications authorizing use of the Minimum Equipment List.
( b ) The following instruments and equipment may not be included in the Minimum Equipment List: ( 1 ) Instruments and equipment that are either specifically or otherwise required by the airworthiness requirements under which the airplane is type certificated and which are essential for safe operations under all operating conditions.
( 2 ) Instruments and equipment required by an airworthiness directive to be in operable condition unless the airworthiness directive provides otherwise.
( 3 ) Instruments and equipment required for specific operations by this part.
( c ) Notwithstanding paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(3) of this section, an airplane with inoperable instruments or equipment may be operated under a special flight permit under §§ 21.197 and 21.199 of this chapter.
[Doc. No. 25780, 56 FR 12310, Mar. 22, 1991, as amended by Docket FAA-2018-0119, Amdt. 125-68, 83 FR 9174, Mar. 5, 2018]
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MELODY KEMSLEY, an individual,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.
MEGAN J. BRENNAN, Postmaster General of the United States Postal Service,

Defendant

- Appellee. No. 19

- 55856

D.C. No. 2:19

- cv

- 00067

- RGK

- MAA

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California R. Gary Klausner, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted November 19, 2020

Pasadena, California

Before: PAEZ and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges, and IMMERGUT, * * District Judge.

Plaintiff Melody Kem s ley appeals the district court’s order granting

Defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Title VII

. We review

t he grant or denial of a motion to dismiss de novo. Los Angeles Lakers, Inc. v. Fed.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The Honorable Karin J. Immergut, United States District Judge for the District of Oregon, sitting by designation. 

# FILED

DEC 24 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2

Ins. Co. , 869 F.3d 795, 800 (9th Cir. 2 017). We review t he district court ’s dismiss al

with prejudice for abuse of discretion. Salameh v. Tarsadia Hotel , 726 F.3d 1124,

1129 (9th Cir. 2013).

T he availability of protection under Title VII’s “participation clause” requires

“ the underlying discrimination

... be reasonably perceived as discrimination

prohibited by Title VII. ” Learned v. City of Bellevue , 860 F.2d 928, 932 (9th Cir.

1988)

. The district court proper ly concluded that Kemsley’s EEOC complaint ’s

claim that she was fired for identifying leave

- use violations did not qualif y as
“protected activity” under Title VII’s broad categories of race, color, religion, sex,

or national origin

. 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e

- 2(a )(1), 2000e

- 3(a)

. Kemsley now maintains that her complaint noted that her EEOC action was

not entirely predicated on the leave

- use violations, but rather leave

- use violations
“among other things.” Acknowledging this aspect of her complaint “admittedly
lack[s] specificity,” Kemsley’s brief on appeal still does not disclose exactly what
those “other things” are
, and insists Kemsley should have been given leave to amend

.
Because the record before bot h this court and the district court is completely devoid

of any specific claimed protected activity, the district court did not abuse its

discretion in dismissing with prejudice

. S ee Kendall v. Visa U.S.A., Inc. , 518 F.3d
1042, 1052 (9th Cir. 2008) (“Appe llants fail to state what additional facts they would
plead if given leave to amend .... Accordingly, amendment would be futile.”)

. “A3

plaintiff may not in substance say ‘trust me,’ and thereby gain a license for further

amendment when [provided] prior op portunity” to explain those facts. Salameh , 726

F.3d at 1133 (finding no abuse of discretion to deny leave to amend where plaintiff

failed to identify facts that could cure deficiencies )

. The district court properly

dismissed Kemsley’s complaint with pre judice

.

AFFIRMED

.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION FOR THE YEAR ENDED
DECEMBER 31, 1996 EXTRACTED FROM THE ISSUER'S ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FORM 10-K.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                           4,393
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,346
<ALLOWANCES>                                       184
<INVENTORY>                                      4,680
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                12,492
<PP&E>                                           4,272
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,082
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  14,552
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            8,212
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         21
<COMMON>                                            44
<OTHER-SE>                                       6,112
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    14,552
<SALES>                                         22,604
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                22,604
<CGS>                                           15,165
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    6,907
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,027
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 274
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (769)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (769)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (769)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.23)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 1-A

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:22660-1 Filed:10/21/22 Entered:10/21/22 10:47:13 Desc:

Exhibit 1-A Page 1 of 7
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:22660-1 Filed:10/21/22 Entered:10/21/22 10:47:13 Desc:

Exhibit 1-A Page 2 of 7
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:22660-1 Filed:10/21/22 Entered:10/21/22 10:47:13 Desc:

Exhibit 1-A Page 3 of 7
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:22660-1 Filed:10/21/22 Entered:10/21/22 10:47:13 Desc:

Exhibit 1-A Page 4 of 7
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:22660-1 Filed:10/21/22 Entered:10/21/22 10:47:13 Desc:

Exhibit 1-A Page 5 of 7
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:22660-1 Filed:10/21/22 Entered:10/21/22 10:47:13 Desc:

Exhibit 1-A Page 6 of 7
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:22660-1 Filed:10/21/22 Entered:10/21/22 10:47:13 Desc:

Exhibit 1-A Page 7 of 7
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE FOR ADELPHIA COMMUNICATIONS CORP. FOR THE SIX MONTHS
ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1998
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000796486
<NAME> ADELPHIA COMMUNICATIONS CORP.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                         171,030
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   49,088<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0<F1>
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                       2,196,746<F2>
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0<F2>
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,797,493
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                      3,029,580
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           421
<OTHER-SE>                                   (977,994)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,797,493
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               314,143
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  252,129
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             126,062
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (77,967)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (4,762)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (73,205)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                (4,337)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (77,542)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (2.75)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (2.75)
<FN>
<F1>RECEIVABLES NET OF ALLOWANCE
<F2>PP&E NET OF DEPRECIATION
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                            (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)


         In connection  with the  accompanying  Annual Report of TechLite,  Inc.
(the  "Company")  on Form  10-KSB  for the year  ended  December  31,  2003 (the
"Report"),  I, J.D.  Arvidson,  Chief Executive  Officer of the Company,  hereby
certify 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 (15 U.S.C.  ss.78m or ss.78o(d));
and

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



Dated:  May 20, 2005
                                             /s/ J.D. Arvidson
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            J.D. Arvidson
                                            Chairman and Chief Executive Officer


         The above  certification is furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of
the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.  ss.1350)  and is not being filed as
part of the Form 10-K or as a separate disclosure document.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
BULLETIN 1039 PLATE 8

GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, .c7:30" A_ SUTTON 3 MILES

x

EXPLANATION

QUATERNARY

Stream and glacial gravel and loess }

Ly
Vill

Unit A
‘Black shale with a small amount of
interbedded graywacke

Unit B
Interbedded black shale and graywacke

Unit C

Graywacke with a small amount of
interbedded black shale

Unit D
Black shale with a small amount of
interbedded graywacke

bey

Unit E
Graywacke with a small amount of
interbedded black shale

Unit F
Black shale

PALMER 92 MILES

Upper Cretaceous
‘CRETACEOUS

‘Matanuska formation

=r

Unit G
Interbedded black shale and graywacke

Ey

Unit H
Graywacke

Unit I
Black shale with a small amount of
interbedded graywacke

Unit J

Graywacke with a small amount of
interbedded black shale

3
Contact

61°]
2

61°41'15" _
Indefinite contact

Po
ee
_

15"

Fault, showing dip and relative movement
Dashed where approximately located;
dotted where concealed

20,

Vertical fault
id y

we

Probable fault

APPROXIMATE MEAN ee

pees a
Strike and dip of beds

a
Building

—

TNTERIOR GEOLOGICAL SURVEY. WASHINGTON, BE) MR SEaT Geology by R. A. Eckhart

Topography by Topographic Division SAS

U. S. Geological Survey

Matanuska River

SECTION ALONG LINE 4.4’

GEOLOGIC MAP AND SECTION OF HAYDITE RAW-MATERIAL
(BLACK-SHALE) AREA NEAR SUTTON, ALASKA

500 ) 500 1000 Feet
L a L 4

Contour interval 50 feet
‘Datum is mean sea level
Exhibit 32 (i)

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

        In connection with the Form 10-Q of National Bankshares, Inc. for the
quarter ended June 30, 2005, I, James G. Rakes, President and Chief Executive
Officer of National Bankshares, Inc. (Principal Executive Officer), hereby
certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that:

(1) such Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2005, 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 such Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
June 30, 2005, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of National Bankshares, Inc.



/s/ JAMES G. RAKES
-------------------
James G. Rakes
Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 83 (Friday, April 28, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 24982]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-10622]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--General Motors Corporation: Restraints 
Deployment Bus Working Group

    Notice is hereby given that, on October 7, 1999, pursuant to 
Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), General Motors Corporation 
has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney 
General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing (1) the identities 
of the parties and (2) the nature and objectives of the venture. The 
notifications were filed for the purpose of invoking the Act's 
provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual 
damages under specified circumstances. Pursuant to Section 6(b) of the 
Act, the identities of the parties are General Motors Corporation, 
Detroit, MI; Chrysler Corporation, Auburn Hills; MI; and Ford Motor 
Company, Dearborn, MI. The nature and objectives of the venture are to 
research ways to transfer some electronics from the airbag control 
module to the airbag igniters. It is expected that the igniters will be 
able to diagnose their health better than the control module is able to 
do today. It is also expected that the system will become much more 
robust against wiring issues that are a primary issue with today's 
technology. To accomplish this objective, the parties are working 
together and with various potential suppliers to develop this 
technology. The parties expect to share the information generated with 
other suppliers and vehicle manufacturers in the future. To accomplish 
this objective, the parties will perform acts allowed by the National 
Cooperative Research and Production Act that would advance these goals.

Constance K. Robinson,
Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 00-10622 Filed 4-27-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED DECEMBER 16, 2021

NO. 03-21-00246-CV

Alison Whittington and Matthew Whittington, Appellants

v.

Ranch at Cypress Creek Municipal Utility District No. 1, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 2 OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE BYRNE, JUSTICES TRIANA AND KELLY

DISMISSED ON JOINT MOTION -- OPINION BY JUSTICE BYRNE

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the trial court on March 23, 2021. The parties 

have filed a joint motion to dismiss the appeal, and having considered the motion, the Court 

agrees that the motion should be granted. Therefore, the Court grants the motion and dismisses

the appeal. Each party shall bear their own costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and in

the court below.
```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 43 (Monday, March 5, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 13075]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-5244]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS

Agenda and Notice of Public Meeting of the Arkansas Advisory 
Committee

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and 
regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission), and 
the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), that a planning meeting of 
the Arkansas Advisory Committee to the Commission will convene by 
conference call at 2 p.m. and adjourn at approximately 3:30 p.m. on 
Monday, April 2, 2012. The purpose of this meeting is to continue 
planning civil rights project.
    This meeting is available to the public through the following toll-
free call-in number: (866) 364-7584, conference call access code number 
56024166. Any interested member of the public may call this number and 
listen to the meeting. Callers can expect to incur charges for calls 
they initiate over wireless lines, and the Commission will not refund 
any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they 
initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. 
Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by 
first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-977-8339 and providing 
the Service with the conference call number and contact name Farella E. 
Robinson.
    To ensure that the Commission secures an appropriate number of 
lines for the public, persons are asked to register by contacting 
Corrine Sanders of the Central Regional Office and TTY/TDD telephone 
number, by 4 p.m. on March 26, 2012.
    Members of the public are entitled to submit written comments. The 
comments must be received in the regional office by May 2, 2012. The 
address is U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 400 State Avenue, Suite 
908, Kansas City, Kansas 66101. Comments may be emailed to 
frobinson@usccr.gov. Records generated by this meeting may be inspected 
and reproduced at the Central Regional Office, as they become 
available, both before and after the meeting. Persons interested in the 
work of this advisory committee are advised to go to the Commission's 
Web site, www.usccr.gov, or to contact the Central Regional Office at 
the above email or street address.
    The meeting will be conducted pursuant to the provisions of the 
rules and regulations of the Commission and FACA.

    Dated in Washington, DC, February 29, 2012.
Peter Minarik,
Acting Chief, Regional Programs Coordination Unit.
[FR Doc. 2012-5244 Filed 3-2-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6335-01-P
```
#### CRANE *v.*MASON.

Error — muskrat trapping — trespass—justification.

In trespass for carrying away muskrat traps, it is competent for the defendant to show that he was possessed of the muskrat marsh, and that the plaintiff, without authority, set his traps there, with intent to catch the muskrats and convert them to his own use, and that the defendant removed the traps from the marsh to a place where the plaintiff could get them.

Error. Mason *sued*Crane *in the*Common Pleas in trespass, for taking and carrying away sixteen muskrat traps, &c. Crane pleaded the general issue, and gave notice under the statute, that one Chapman owned, and was possessed of a certain muskrat marsh, where large numbers of male and female muskrats wonted and burrowed, and that Mason, without authority, went upon said marsh, and set his said traps, with the intent to catch the muskrats, and convert them to his own use, and Crane, as the servant of Chapman, *334and by his direction, to prevent the said injury, carried the said traps away from the marsh, but left them where Mason could get them, which was the only taking, &c.

On the trial, Mason proved, that he set the traps in the marsh, their value, and that Crane took thirteen of them away. The defendant, Crane, offered to prove that one Winthrop, long before, had the ground surveyed, and exercised acts of ownership over it; that he leased to Schoster, under whom Chapman held, and to whom he paid rent before the act was committed, and that Crane was his servant, and acted under his command, &c. which being objected to, was ruled out by the court. It is claimed the court erred in ruling out the evidence, and for this error the writ is brought.

Hopkins, for the plaintiff in error.

Wood, J.

We are not very well versed in the law of the muskrat trappers; but, as it seems to us that the evidence offered and rejected, tended to show that Mason was himself the wrong-doer, and that Crane was no trespasser, it was competent under the issue, and should have been received. The court erred in rejecting it.

For this error, the judgment and proceedings since the making up the issue, are reversed with costs, and the cause is remanded to the Court of Common Pleas, with instructions to reinstate it and proceed.