alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 83 (Friday, April 28, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24922-24925]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-10574]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary

[Transmittal No. 00-31]


36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification

AGENCY: Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text 
of a section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. This is published to 
fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated 21 
July 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. J. Hurd, DSCA/COMPT/RM, (703) 604-
6575.
    The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of 
Representatives, Transmittal 00-31 with attached transmittal and policy 
justification.

    Dated: April 24, 2000.
L.M. Bynum,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.

BILLING CODE 5001-10-C

[[Page 24923]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN28AP00.011


[[Page 24924]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN28AP00.012


[[Page 24925]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN28AP00.013

[FR Doc. 00-10574 Filed 4-27-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-10-C
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

RODRIGO M. ALVARADO,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 311 MAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 26th day of September, 2017

, the Petition for Allowance of

Appeal is DENIED

.
SCHEDULE 1

LIST OF PROFESSIONALS BY MATTER

Official Comm. of Unsecured Creditors of Commonwealth of PR (Matter ID 101)

Name Title or Position Department, Group, or

Section

Arrastia, John Partner Litigation

Castaldi, Angelo M. Associate Litigation/Bankruptcy

Alvarez, Carlos E. Associate Litigation

Gray, Heather Paralegal Litigation/Bankruptcy

PREPA (Matter ID 102)

Name Title or Position Department, Group, or

Section

Arrastia, John Partner Litigation

Suarez, Jesus M. Partner Bankruptcy

Castaldi, Angelo M. Associate Litigation/Bankruptcy

Alvarez, Carlos E. Associate Litigation

ERS (Matter ID 103)

Name Title or Position Department, Group, or

Section

Arrastia, John Partner Litigation

Suarez, Jesus M. Partner Bankruptcy

Castaldi, Angelo M. Associate Litigation/Bankruptcy

Gray, Heather Paralegal Litigation/Bankruptcy

HTA (Matter ID 104)

Name Title or Position Department, Group, or

Section

Arrastia, John Partner Litigation

Castaldi, Angelo M. Associate Litigation/Bankruptcy

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:23808-7 Filed:03/15/23 Entered:03/15/23 16:36:49 Desc:

Schedule 1 Page 1 of 1
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEFENDANT IN ERROR, v. CHARLES BRIGHT, Jr., PLAINTIFF IN ERROR.

Submitted February 16, 1940

Decided April 25, 1940.

For the defendant in error, *William, A. W.*Grier, prosecutor of the pleas.

For the plaintiff in error, *David L. Horuvitz.*

*452Per Curiam.

This appeal challenges certain rulings of the trial court respecting the admission or rejection of evidence, the legal propriety of a portion of the charge to the jury, the refusal of the trial court to direct a verdict of acquittal and other incidental matter. Upon consideration thereof we are satisfied that none of the matters complained of resulted in harmful error.

The judgment appealed from is, therefore, affirmed.

*For affirmance*— Case, Bodine, Heher, Perskie, Hetfield, Dear, Wells, WolfsKeil, Rafferty, Hague, JJ. 10.

*For reversal*— Parker, J. 1.
§ 105.7 Use of alcohol and drugs. No person may conduct a parachute operation, and no pilot in command of an aircraft may allow a person to conduct a parachute operation from that aircraft, if that person is or appears to be under the influence of— ( a ) Alcohol, or
( b ) Any drug that affects that person's faculties in any way contrary to safety.
Case:17-03283-LTS   Doc#:23871   Filed:03/24/23   Entered:03/24/23 11:36:14    Desc: MainDocument     Page 1 of 3

Case:17-03283-LTS   Doc#:23871   Filed:03/24/23   Entered:03/24/23 11:36:14    Desc: MainDocument     Page 2 of 3

Case:17-03283-LTS   Doc#:23871   Filed:03/24/23   Entered:03/24/23 11:36:14    Desc: MainDocument     Page 3 of 3
Schedule A

Actions to be Transferred to the Avoidance Actions Trust

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:23094-1 Filed:12/16/22 Entered:12/16/22 19:10:17 Desc:

Schedule A Page 1 of 2
2

Actions to be Transferred to the Avoidance Actions Trust1

VENDOR NAME ADVERSARY PROCEEDING NO.

Core Laboratories N.V. d/b/a Saybolt 19-381

Puerto Nuevo Security Guards, Inc. 19-384

 1 The actions to be transferred to the Avoidance Actions Trust include, but are not limited to, the actions listed on 

this Exhibit.

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:23094-1 Filed:12/16/22 Entered:12/16/22 19:10:17 Desc:

Schedule A Page 2 of 2
Of the Tenth Circuit, sitting by designation. *

Not For Publication in West's Federal Reporter

Citation Limited Pursuant to 1st Cir. Loc. R. 32.3

United States Court of Appeals

For the First Circuit

No. 05-1936

JOSÉ A. RAMOS-RODRÍGUEZ; NYDIA RAMOS-MARTÍNEZ,

Plaintiffs, Appellants,

v.

PEDRO A. TOLEDO-DÁVILA, Superintendent, Puerto Rico Police

Department; PABLO SANTIAGO-GONZÁLEZ, Inspector General, Puerto

Rico Police Department; COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO,

Defendants, Appellees.

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

[Hon. Raymond L. Acosta, U.S. District Judge]

Before

Howard, Circuit Judge,

Baldock and Stahl, Senior Circuit Judges. *

John Ward-Llambias on brief for appellants.

Salvador J. Antonetti-Stutts, Solicitor General, Mariana D.

Negrón-Vargas, Deputy Solicitor General, Maite D. Oronoz-Rodríguez,

Deputy Solicitor General, and Rosa Elena Pérez-Agosto, Assistant

Solicitor General, on brief for appellees. 

November 17, 2006
-2-

STAHL, Senior Circuit Judge. Having considered the

parties' briefs and the record below, we affirm the district

court's grant of summary judgment in this case, for substantially

the reasons outlined in the district court's careful opinion. 

Appellants, both members of the Puerto Rico Police

Department (PRPD), brought suit against the Superintendent and

Inspector General of the PRPD and against the Commonwealth, for

civil rights violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Ramos-Rodriguez

alleges that he was denied due process when he was not promoted to

First Lieutenant, and together they allege their right to

association was violated when the PRPD investigated whether they

were conducting an intimate relationship at the police station. We

review a grant of summary judgment de novo. Mulloy v. Acushnet

Co., 460 F.3d 141, 145 (1st Cir. 2006). Ramos-Rodriguez's due

process claim does not survive summary judgment because, viewing

the facts in the light most favorable to him, he has failed to

allege a viable property interest in receiving a promotion. Stuart

v. Roache, 951 F.2d 446, 455 (1st Cir. 1991). Puerto Rico law does

not permit promotion of a police officer where he has outstanding

disciplinary complaints. 25 P.R. Laws Ann. § 3114(d) (2003).

Here, it is uncontested that Ramos had at least two, and up to

seven, complaints pending against him on each of the three relevant

promotion dates. In addition, Ramos-Rodriguez's allegation that
-3-

the PRPD had a practice of lodging anonymous complaints to prevent

promotions simply is not supported by the record. 

Appellants also argue that "both plaintiffs have been

deprived of a federally protected right to privacy by undue

surveillance and harassment." Appellants' Brief at 14. However,

appellants expend only two sentences of their brief on this

argument, one in the Statement of Issues and one in the Conclusion.

With such a paucity of argumentation, appellants have waived this

issue. United States v. Zannino, 895 F.2d 1, 17 (1st Cir. 1990)

("[I]ssues adverted to in a perfunctory manner, unaccompanied by

some effort at developed argumentation, are deemed waived."). 

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                       5,480,816
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                7,566,786
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  3,766,297
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            17,647,483
<PP&E>                                         997,218
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              24,461,565
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       10,178,559
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       125,735
<OTHER-SE>                                  14,157,271
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                24,461,565
<SALES>                                     11,978,579
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            11,978,579
<CGS>                                        9,236,324
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                9,236,324
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             3,117,744
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              86,231
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (461,720)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (461,720)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (461,720)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Billings & Pompeys Pillar 

National Monument Draft RMP / EIS

Map 7

US DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

Montana

 Wyoming

Soil

T-Factor

T

9

N

T

1

N

T

1

S

T

8

S

R18E R29E

R104W R93W

T

57

N

0 4 8 16 24 32 40

Map scale 1:1,350,000

Miles

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.

Wyoming

Location Map

Legend Montana

Billings 

Field 

Office

Ü

State Border

Planning Area Boundary

T-factor Soils

Public Lands Survey System
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-04-00329-CR

Anthony Lee Gardner, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 147TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 0001942, HONORABLE WILFORD FLOWERS, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

On October 31, 2000, Anthony Lee Gardner was sentenced to fifteen years in prison for 

sexually assaulting a child. On March 22, 2004, Gardner filed a motion for out of time appeal in the district 

court. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.2(a). The court overruled the motion and the record was forwarded to this 

Court. The court certified that this is a plea bargain case and Gardner has no right of appeal. See Tex. R. 

App. P. 25.2(d).

Because the notice of appeal was not timely, we lack jurisdiction to dispose of the 

purported appeal in any manner other than by dismissing it for want of jurisdiction. See Slaton v. State, 

981 S.W.2d 208 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998); Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 522-23 (Tex. Crim. App. 

1996).
2

The appeal is dismissed.

__________________________________________

Jan P. Patterson, Justice

Before Chief Justice Law, Justices Patterson and Puryear

Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction

Filed: June 24, 2004

Do Not Publish
§ 703.101 Purpose and scope. ( a ) *Purpose.* This subpart grants Federal credit unions limited authority to enter into Derivatives only for the purpose of managing Interest Rate Risk.
( b ) *Scope.* This subpart applies to all Federal credit unions. Except as provided in § 741.219, this rule does not apply to federally insured, state-chartered credit unions.
( c ) *Prior approvals.* Any Federal credit union with an active approval, under the prior version of this subpart, on June 25, 2021 is subject to the provisions of this subpart and is no longer subject to the restrictions, limits, or terms contained in the Federal credit union's approved application.
( d ) *Pending Approvals.* Any application for Derivatives authority pending on June 25, 2021, except for such applications submitted by a Federal credit union that would be subject to the requirements of § 703.108(b), is deemed to be withdrawn and such applicant is subject to the provisions of this subpart.
§ 7.5001 Electronic activities that are incidental to the business of banking. In addition to the electronic activities specifically permitted in § 7.5004 (sale of excess electronic capacity and by-products) and § 7.5006 (incidental non-financial data processing), the OCC has determined that the following electronic activities are incidental to the business of banking, pursuant to § 7.1000. This list of activities is illustrative and not exclusive; the OCC may determine that other activities are permissible pursuant to this authority. ( a ) Website development where incidental to other banking services;
( b ) Internet access and email provided on a non-profit basis as a promotional activity;
( c ) Advisory and consulting services on electronic activities where the services are incidental to customer use of electronic banking services; and
( d ) Sale of equipment that is convenient or useful to customer's use of related electronic banking services, such as specialized terminals for scanning checks that will be deposited electronically by wholesale customers of banks under the Check Clearing for the 21st Century Act, Public Law 108-100 (12 U.S.C. 5001-5018) (the Check 21 Act).
[85 FR 83737, Dec. 22, 2020]
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA 

ALBERTO JULIO GUILLEN, 

Petitioner, 

vs. 

THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT 

COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, 

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF 

WASHOE; AND THE HONORABLE 

SCOTT N. FREEMAN, DISTRICT 

JUDGE, 

Respondents, 

and 

THE STATE OF NEVADA, 

Real Party in Interest. 

No. 69970 

FILED 

APR 1 4 2016 

TRACE K. LINDEMAN 

CLER.W SUPREME COURT 

BY 

DEPUTY CLERK 

ORDER DENYING PETITION 

This original petition for a writ of certiorari challenges the 

district court's order affirming petitioner Alberto Guillen's misdemeanor 

convictions for assault, battery, and making a threatening telephone call. 

Guillen contends that NRS 51.035 is unconstitutional insofar as it permits 

a conviction solely on the basis of a victim's prior inconsistent statements 

without other corroborating evidence. 

A writ of certiorari is an extraordinary remedy, lying within 

the discretion of this court. Zamarripa v. First Judicial Dist. Court, 103 

Nev. 638, 640, 747 P.2d 1386, 1387 (1987). The writ may be granted to 

review the constitutionality of a statute in appealing a decision of the 

justice court where an appellant was prosecuted under that statute and 

the district court has ruled on the constitutionality of that statute. NRS 

34.020(3). Guillen, however, has not challenged the constitutionality of 

the offense statutes under which he was prosecuted, but rather challenges 

the constitutionality of the evidence admitted against him. See Glass v. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 

i - 117 3 4, 
Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 87 Nev. 321, 324, 486 P.2d 1180, 1182(1971) 

("Certiorari, although available to test the constitutionality of a statute, is 

not available to decide a question of the admissibility of evidence."). As 

this claim does not fall within the narrow scope of NRS 34.020, we decline 

to exercise our discretion to issue a writ of certiorari. 

Having considered Guillen's petition and concluded that 

extraordinary relief is not warranted, we 

ORDER the petition DENIED. 

Douglas 

J. 

cc: Hon. Scott N. Freeman, District Judge 

Washoe County Public Defender 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Washoe County District Attorney 

Washoe District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 2 

(0) 1947T
§ 121.628 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 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; Amdt. 121-222, 56 FR 14290, Apr. 8, 1991; Amdt. 121-253, 61 FR 2615, Jan. 26, 1996; Docket FAA-2018-0119, Amdt. 121-380, 83 FR 9172, Mar. 5, 2018]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

In re:

THE FINANCIAL OVERSIGHT AND 

MANAGEMENT BOARD FOR PUERTO 

RICO,

As representative of

THE COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO 

RICO, et. als.

Debtors

PROMESA Title III 

No. 17 BK 3283 (LTS)

(Jointly Administered)

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE

TO THE HONORABLE COURT:

COMES NOW, Professional Consulting International Group, Inc. (“Claimant”) through its

undersigned counsel, and respectfully states and requests: 

1. Claimant is a creditor in Case No. 17 BK 3283 (LTS).

2. On May 3, 2018, Claimant filed Prime Clerk Claim Number 10517 as a secured 

claim for $1,550,400.00 plus annual interest at 6% and legal fees, objected by the Commonwealth 

of Puerto Rico not as to amount, but as its classification as secured.

3. Claimant has retained the undersigned law firm to join Luis P. Costas Elena, Esq. in 

his representation of Claimant in the captioned case. 

4. Consequently, it is requested that all notices required to be issued in said case 

pursuant to Rule 2002 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure and copy of all documents 

which may be filed, be served on Claimant through the undersigned law firm. 

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:21825 Filed:08/12/22 Entered:08/12/22 13:46:46 Desc: Main

Document Page 1 of 2
2

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully requested that all notices required to be issued in this case 

pursuant to Rule 2002 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure and copy of all documents 

which may be filed, be served on Claimant through the undersigned law firm.

San Juan, Puerto Rico, this 12th day of August 2022

s/CHARLES A. CUPRILL-HERNÁNDEZ

USDC-PR 114312

Charles A. Cuprill, P.S.C. Law Offices 

356 Fortaleza Street, Second Floor

San Juan, PR 00901 

Tel.: 787-977-0515

Fax: 787-977-0518

E-mail: ccuprill@cuprill.com

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:21825 Filed:08/12/22 Entered:08/12/22 13:46:46 Desc: Main

Document Page 2 of 2
David M. Kirstein 

Direct 202.331-3348 

Fax 202.331.3933 

Email dkirstein@yklaw.com 

March 2, 2010 

BY ELECTRONIC FILING

Ms. Dorothy Beard 

Docket Management System 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Ave., S.E. 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

RE: Polling Results for Exemption Application of Spirit

Docket OST-2010-0052

Dear Ms. Beard: 

This is to advise that we have completed our polling of the carriers on Spirit’s application 

for Exemption authority to provide air transportation service between U.S.–Barranquilla, 

Colombia. There are no objections. 

 Sincerely, 

 

 David M. Kirstein 

 

cc: Esta Rosenberg by email 

Brian Hedberg by email 

Service List
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 12**  **- 7713** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. LOUIS VINCENT BROWN , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Charleston
. Patrick Michael Duffy , Senior District Judge. ( 2:07

- cr - 00422

- PMD

- 1 ; 2:10

- cv - 70163

- PMD )

Submitted : December 13 , 2012 Decided: December 19, 2012

Before MOTZ, WYNN , and FLOYD , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
. Louis Vincent Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Alston Calhoun Badger, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM : Louis Vincent Brown appeals the district court ’ s order denying his motion requesting that counsel be appointed to him for the pur pose of examining whether this c ourt’s decision in United States v. Simmons , 649 F.3d 237, 243

– 45 (4th Cir. 2011) (en banc ) , directs that one of his prior state convictions no longer qualifies as a felony and therefore entitles him to a reduction of sentence. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible

error. Indeed, as we have recently explained, our holding in Simmons is not retroactive ly applicable to cases on collateral review. United States v. Powell , 691 F.3d 554, 559

- 60 (4th Cir. 2012 )
. Nor, in any event, does a habeas petitioner have any constitutional right to be represented by counsel in his collateral attack. Rouse v. Lee , 339 F.3d 238, 250 (4th Cir. 2003). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district
court. We dispense w ith oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.

AFFIRMED