alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

1

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

July 9, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-20938

Summary Calendar

KELLY, SUTTER, MOUNT & KENDRICK, P.C., doing business as

Kelly, Sutter & Kendrick, P.C.; J DOUGLAS SUTTER,

Plaintiffs - Appellees,

v.

ROBERT ALPERT,

Defendant - Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division

USDC No. 4:05-CV-2213

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

Before DeMOSS, STEWART and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The United States District Court for the Southern District of

Texas entered default judgment against Appellant, Robert Alpert,

after he failed to respond to a complaint filed against him. Alpert

moved to set aside the default judgment solely under Rule 60(b)(4),

claiming that he had not been validly served with process because

the person who received the summons and complaint, his housekeeper,

did not live at his residence at the time of service. The district

court held an evidentiary hearing and determined that the testimony
2

of Alpert and his housekeeper were not credible and that the

housekeeper was residing at the house at the time of service. The

court concluded that service of process was adequate. Alpert

subsequently filed a motion for new trial and a second motion to

set aside the default judgment, this time alleging excusable

neglect, which were both denied by the district court. Alpert

appeals to this Court. 

Whether there was sufficient service of process upon a

defendant is an issue of law that this court reviews de novo. Maiz

v. Virani, 311 F.3d 334, 338, 340 (5th Cir. 2002). “We review the

district court's findings of fact underlying its disposition of a

rule 60(b)(4) motion for clear error.” Goetz v. Synthesys

Technologies, Inc., 415 F.3d 481, 483 (5th Cir. 2005). The issue of

whether or not service was proper in this case turns on the factual

determination of whether Alpert’s housekeeper was residing at his

home at the time of service. After review of the record, we do not

find that the court clearly erred in determining that Alpert’s

housekeeper was a “person of suitable age and discretion then

residing” in Alpert’s home, thus satisfying the requirements for

service of process under Rule 4(e)(2). In addition, for the reasons

stated in the district court’s Memorandum and Opinion entered on

October 25, 2006, we agree that Alpert has failed to make the

requisite showing that the judgment should be set aside under

either Rule 59(e) or 60(b)(1). 

AFFIRMED.
# Official Journal L 311/2021

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 311 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 643 September 2021 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 311

English edition

Legislation

Volume 643 September 2021

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | REGULATIONS |
| | * | Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1434 of 2 September 2021 terminating a review of Council Implementing Regulations (EU) No 443/2011 and (EU) No 444/2011 extending the definitive countervailing and anti-dumping duty on imports of biodiesel consigned from Canada | 1 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

REGULATIONS

*

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1434 of 2 September 2021 terminating a review of Council Implementing Regulations (EU) No 443/2011 and (EU) No 444/2011 extending the definitive countervailing and anti-dumping duty on imports of biodiesel consigned from Canada

1

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Communications Commission

          - 47 CFR Part 73 
          - [DA No. 00-835; MM Docket No. 99-302; RM-9727] 

# AGENCY:

Federal Communications Commission. 

# ACTION:

Final rule. 

# SUMMARY:

                        This document reallots Channel 271C from Monahans, Texas, to Gardendale, Texas, and modifies the license for Station KFZX (formerly KCDQ) to specify operation on Channel 271C at Gardendale in response to a petition filed by Capstar Royalty II Corporation                         *See*64 FR 57835, October 27, 1999. The coordinates for Channel 271C at Gardendale are 31-57-55 and 102-46-10. With this action, this proceeding is terminated.                     

# EFFECTIVE DATE:

May 30, 2000. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kathleen Scheuerle, Mass Media Bureau, (202) 418-2180. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

This is a summary of the Commission's Report and Order, MM Docket No. 99-302, adopted April 5, 2000, and released April 14, 2000. The full text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the Commission's Reference Center, 445 12th Street, SW, Washington, DC. The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the Commission's copy contractors, International Transcription Services, Inc., 1231 20th Street, NW., Washington, DC. 20036, (202) 857-3800, facsimile (202) 857-3805. 

# List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

      - Radio broadcasting

Part 73 of title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows: 

# PART 73—[AMENDED] 

1. The authority citation for Part 73 continues to read as follows: 

Authority:47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334 and 336. 

§ 73.202 

2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM Allotments under Texas, is amended by removing Channel 271C at Monahans and adding Gardendale, Channel 271C. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

John A. Karousos, 

Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media Bureau. 

[FR Doc. 00-10759 Filed 5-1-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
§ 622.13 Exceptions. ( a ) *Filing.* Within 15 days after service of the recommended decision of the presiding officer, any party may file exceptions thereto or to any portion thereof, or to the failure of the presiding officer to make any recommendation, finding, or conclusion, or to the admission or exclusion of evidence, or to any other ruling of the presiding officer.
( b ) *Contents.* Each exception shall be supported by a concise argument and by citation of such statutes, decisions and other authorities, and by page references to such portions of the record as may be relevant. If the exception relates to the admission or exclusion of evidence, the substance of the evidence admitted or excluded shall be set forth in the brief with appropriate references to the transcript.
( c ) *Waiver.* Failure of a party to file exceptions to those matters specified in paragraph (a) of this section within the time prescribed shall be a waiver of objection thereto.
Memorandum 

To: File

From: Anita Lee, EPA Region IX

Date: February 23, 2012

Subject: Telephone Conversation with Sterling Gray, URS regarding PerNOxide Controls

This memorandum summarizes main points during conversation with Sterling Gray of URS 

Corporation. 

 Navajo Generating Station uses a forced oxidation gypsum producing wet scrubber. The 

chemistry of the existing scrubbers is not favorable for capture of the oxidized NOx 

species formed from reaction with peroxide. However, the scrubber chemistry can be 

changed and converted to inhibited oxidation, ultimately could involve use of sodium, but 

Mr. Gray believes the plant may not be receptive to changing the scrubber chemistry.

 Before this technology would be considered at NGS, Mr. Gray believes a pilot or full 

scale demonstration would be required first.

 URS’s estimate that the combination of SNCR and PerNOxide could reduce NOx 

emissions by 63% is generally an average of an expected range of 60 – 65%. 

 URS’s estimate that capital costs of $40/kW (SNCR + PerNOxide) for a 400 MW unit 

could be conservatively applied to a larger unit, i.e., cost per kW for larger units would 

probably be lower, but use of the $40/kW would be conservative. For NGS, this cost does 

not include the potential costs to modify the scrubber chemistry.

 Similar to annual maintenance costs for SNCR or PerNOxide alone, the annual 

maintenance cost for SNCR + PerNOxide is expected to be 1% of capital costs.
# C_2022432EN.01003401.xml

| 14.11.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 432/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.11.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 432/34

---

Action brought on 27 September 2022 — Société du Tour de France v EUIPO — FitX (TOUR DE X)

(Case T-604/22)

(2022/C 432/42)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Société du Tour de France (Boulogne-Billancourt, France) (represented by: T. de Haan and S. Vandezande, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: FitX Beteiligungs GmbH (Essen, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark TOUR DE X — Application for registration No 16 701 039

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 July 2022 in Case R 1136/2019-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO and the intervener to bear the costs, including those incurred by the applicant before the Office’s Second Board of Appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and the intervener to bear the costs, including those incurred by the applicant before the Office’s Second Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 94 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 94 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
Exhibit 31.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, Anil K. Jain, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of APA Optics, Inc.;

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 report;

3.   Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
     information included in this quarterly report, fairly represent 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
     report;

4.   The registrant's other certifying officers and I are 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 have:

     a)   Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
          disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our
          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 report is being prepared;

     b)   Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls
          and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions 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 affect, the registrant's internal control over
          financial reporting; and

5.   The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on
     our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to
     the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board
     of directors:

     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 information; and

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


November 5, 2003




Signature: /s/ Anil K. Jain
           ----------------
Print Name: Anil K. Jain
            ------------
Print Title: Chief Executive Officer
             -----------------------


<PAGE>
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 82 (Thursday, April 27, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24726-24727]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-10460]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

April 20, 2000.
    The Department of the Treasury has submitted the following public 
information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance 
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Copies of 
the submission(s) may be obtained by

[[Page 24727]]

calling the Treasury Bureau Clearance Officer listed. Comments 
regarding this information collection should be addressed to the OMB 
reviewer listed and to the Treasury Department Clearance Officer, 
Department of the Treasury, Room 2110, 1425 New York Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC 20220.

DATES: Written comments should be received on or before May 30, 2000, 
to be assured of consideration.

Customs Service (CUS)

    OMB Number: 1515-0021.
    Form Number: Customs Form 3499.
    Type of Review: Extension.
    Title: Application and Approval to Manipulate, Examine, Sample, or 
Transfer Goods.
    Description: Customs Form 3499 is prepared by importers or 
consignees as an application to request examination, sampling, or 
transfer of merchandise under Customs supervision. This form is also an 
application for the manipulation of merchandise in a bonded warehouse 
and abandonment or destruction of merchandise.
    Respondents: Business or other for-profit, Not-for-profit 
institutions.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 2,290.
    Estimated Burden Hours Per Respondent: 6 minutes.
    Frequency of Response: On occasion.
    Estimated Total Reporting Burden: 13,740 hours.

    OMB Number: 1515-0054.
    Form Number: Customs Form 3173.
    Type of Review: Extension.
    Title: Application for Extension of Bond for Temporary Importation.
    Description: Importers merchandise which is to remain in the U.S. 
Customs territory for one year or less without duty payment is entered 
as a temporary importation. The importer may apply for an extension of 
this period on Customs Form 3173.
    Respondents: Business or other for-profit, Not-for-profit 
institutions.
    Estimated Number of Recordkeepers: 1,200.
    Estimated Burden Hours Per Recordkeeper: 10 minutes.
    Frequency of Response: On occasion.
    Estimated Total Recordkeeping Burden: 348 hours.
    Clearance Officer: J. Edgar Nichols, (202) 927-1426, U.S. Customs 
Service, Printing and Records Management Branch, Ronald Reagan 
Building, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Room 3.2.C, Washington, DC 
20229.
    OMB Reviewer: Alexander T. Hunt, (202) 395-7860, Office of 
Management and Budget, Room 10202, New Executive Office Building, 
Washington, DC 20503.

Lois K. Holland,
Departmental Reports Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 00-10460 Filed 4-26-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4820-02-U
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3118 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.3118

                       One Hundred Eighth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
           the twentieth day of January, two thousand and four

                                 An Act

 
 To designate the Orville Wright Federal Building and the Wilbur Wright 
          Federal Building in Washington, District of Columbia.

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

SECTION 1. ORVILLE WRIGHT FEDERAL BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The Federal building located at 800 Independence 
Avenue, Southwest, in Washington, District of Columbia, shall be known 
and designated as the ``Orville Wright Federal Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the Federal building 
referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the 
``Orville Wright Federal Building''.

SEC. 2. WILBUR WRIGHT FEDERAL BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The Federal building located at 600 Independence 
Avenue, Southwest, in Washington, District of Columbia, shall be known 
and designated as the ``Wilbur Wright Federal Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the Federal building 
referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the 
``Wilbur Wright Federal Building''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
Rights-of-Way Corridors within the

Billings Field Office Planning Area

Alternative D

Map 78

£¤

Belfry

^_

Warren

^_

Frannie

^_

T6ST8S

R22E Montana R100W Wyoming

T

58NT

56N

0 80 160 320 480 640

Miles

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

Billings & Pompeys Pillar 

National Monument RMP / EIS

Wyoming

Location Map

Montana

Billings

Field 

Office

Ü

Map scale 1:130,000

Map generated by the Billings Field Office in July 2011

Albers Equal Area, NAD83 Projection

This map is intended for display purposes. No warranty is made by the Bureau of

Land Management as to the accuracy, reliability or completeness of the data for

individual or aggregate use with other data, or for purposes not intended by BLM. 

This map may not meet National Map Accuracy Standards. This product was

developed through digital means and information may be updated without notification.

Legend

State Border

Corridors

Highway

Roads

^_ Towns

Bureau of Land Management

Bureau of Reclamation

Division of State Lands

U.S. Forest Service

Water

Private 

Public Lands Survey System

310
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

LANDLORD SERVICE BUREAU, INC.; MICHELLE WILLIAMS; COLLYER REALTY COMPANY, D/B/A GALASSO REAL ESTATE SERVICES; SANTO POLICICHIO;

CROWN REAL ESTATE AND

MANAGEMENT SERVICES

v.

THE CITY OF PITTSBURGH AND

COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PITTSBURGH

REALTORS ASSOCIATION OF METROPOLITAN PITTSBURGH, A

PENNSYLVANIA CORPORATION NOT

FOR PROFIT

v.

THE CITY OF PITTSBURGH APARTMENT

ASSOCIATION OF METROPOLITAN PITTSBURGH, A PENNSYLVANIA

CORPOR ATION NOT FOR PROFIT

v.

THE CITY OF PITTSBURGH, A HOME

RULE CITY

PETITION OF: THE CITY OF

PITTSBURGH AND COUNCIL OF THE

CITY OF PITTSBURGH :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 82 WAL 2023

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the

Commonwealth CourtORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 1st day of September, 2023, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is GRANTED . The issue, rephrased for clarity, is:

Did the Commonwealth Court err when it held, in light of Pennsylvania Rest. & Lodging Ass’n v. City of Pittsburgh , 211 A.3d 810 (Pa. 2019), that the City of Pittsburgh lacked home rule authority under 53 P.S. § 2962(f) to enact its Rental Registration Ordi nance?
Order entered November ,2012

In The

Court of Ipp al 

 ifth isrci t of gtxas at allas

NO. 05-12-00689-CR

GARY MYRE, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1

Kaufman County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 30519CC

ORDER

The Court REINSTATES the appeal.

On October 23, 2012, we ordered the trial court to make findings regarding why

appellant’s brief had not been filed. However, on October 23, 2012, we received appellant’s

brief, together with an extension motion. Therefore, findings are not necessary and we

VACATE the October 23, 2012 order.

We GRANT the October 23, 2012 extension motion and ORDER appellant’s brief filed

as of the date of this order.

DAVID U BRIDGE~L---------

JUSTICE