alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 121.1107 Repairs assessment for pressurized fuselages. ( a ) No certificate holder may operate an Airbus Model A300 (excluding the -600 series), British Aerospace Model BAC 1-11, Boeing Model 707, 720, 727, 737, or 747, McDonnell Douglas Model DC-8, DC-9/MD-80 or DC-10, Fokker Model F28, or Lockheed Model L-1011 airplane beyond the applicable flight cycle implementation time specified below, or May 25, 2001, whichever occurs later, unless operations specifications have been issued to reference repair assessment guidelines applicable to the fuselage pressure boundary (fuselage skin, door skin, and bulkhead webs), and those guidelines are incorporated in its maintenance program. The repair assessment guidelines must be approved by the responsible Aircraft Certification Service office for the type certificate for the affected airplane. ( 1 ) For the Airbus Model A300 (excluding the -600 series), the flight cycle implementation time is: ( i ) Model B2: 36,000 flights.
( ii ) Model B4-100 (including Model B4-2C): 30,000 flights above the window line, and 36,000 flights below the window line.
( iii ) Model B4-200: 25,500 flights above the window line, and 34,000 flights below the window line.
( 2 ) For all models of the British Aerospace BAC 1-11, the flight cycle implementation time is 60,000 flights.
( 3 ) For all models of the Boeing 707, the flight cycle implementation time is 15,000 flights.
( 4 ) For all models of the Boeing 720, the flight cycle implementation time is 23,000 flights.
( 5 ) For all models of the Boeing 727, the flight cycle implementation time is 45,000 flights.
( 6 ) For all models of the Boeing 737, the flight cycle implementation time is 60,000 flights.
( 7 ) For all models of the Boeing 747, the flight cycle implementation time is 15,000 flights.
( 8 ) For all models of the McDonnell Douglas DC-8, the flight cycle implementation time is 30,000 flights.
( 9 ) For all models of the McDonnell Douglas DC-9/MD-80, the flight cycle implementation time is 60,000 flights.
( 10 ) For all models of the McDonnell Douglas DC-10, the flight cycle implementation time is 30,000 flights.
( 11 ) For all models of the Lockheed L-1011, the flight cycle implementation time is 27,000 flights.
( 12 ) For the Fokker F-28 Mark 1000, 2000, 3000, and 4000, the flight cycle implementation time is 60,000 flights.
( b ) [Reserved]
[Doc. No. 29104, 65 FR 24125, Apr. 25, 2000; 65 FR 50744, Aug. 21, 2000, as amended by Amdt. 121-282, 66 FR 23130, May 7, 2001; ; Amdt. 121-305, 69 FR 45942, July 30, 2004. Redesignated and amended by Amdt. 121-336, 72 FR 63412, Nov. 8, 2007; Docket FAA-2018-0119, Amdt. 121-380, 83 FR 9173, Mar. 5, 2018]
Œ This opinion was released initially in typescript form. 

## In the 

# United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit

____________
No. 06-2801

U NITED S TATES OF A MERICA , Plaintiff-Appellee
, v

.

S HAABAN H AFIZ A HMAD A LI S HAABAN , Defendant-Appellant

.

____________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division. No. 05 CR 34—John Daniel Tinder, Judge

.

____________ A PPELLANTC OUNSEL’S M OTION T O W ITHDRAWA ND T O A LLOWM R . S HAABAN T O P ROCEED P RO S E

____________ A PRIL 24, 2008 Œ

____________

R IPPLE , Circuit Judge(in chambers). Counsel for Shaaban Hafiz Ahmad Ali Shaaban seeks leave to withdraw as appointed counsel for Mr. Shaaban and asks that I permit Mr. Shaaban to proc eed pro se. On January 28,2 No. 06-2801
2008, I appointed new counsel for Mr. Shaaban after concluding that the record raised substantial doubt that his previously appo inted counsel had fulfilled adequately his obligations under the Seve nth Circuit Criminal Justice Act Plan, § V.3. United States v. Shaaban , 514 F.3d 697, 698- 99 (7th Cir. 2008) (Ripple, J., in chambers). I directed that new counsel file either a petition for rehearing or a motion to withdraw on the gr ound that any such petition would be frivolous. Id . at 699. On February 7, 2008, the court appointed Chief Federal Defender Richard H. Parsons in Peoria, Illinois, and Staff Attorney Andrew J. McGowan of that office was assigned to the case.Attorney McGowan now represents that he has identified a non-frivolous issue that could be raised in the petition for rehearing, but he further notes that there are possible negative consequences to raising that issue. Mr. Shaaban has informed Mr. McGowan that he does not want this issue to be raised. Instead, Mr. Shaaban has prepared a pro se petition for rehearing that raisesthe issues that Mr. Shaaban wants to be raised. He attempted to file his pro se peti tion with the court, but the Clerk properly rejected th e pro se petition because Mr. Shaaban was represented by counsel. As a result of the disagreement regarding how to proceed, counselbelieves that there has been a breakdown in the attorneyclient relationship and moves to withdraw.Counsel was directed to file either a petition for rehearing or a motion to withdraw because such a petition would be frivolous. Shaaban , 514 F.3d at 699. Attorney McGowan explains that he cannot represent that a petition for rehearing would be frivolous because the issue hehas identified could have possible beneficial consequences, as well as possible negative consequences.No. 06-2801 3

Mr. Shaaban, however, does not want this issue to be raised. I must conclude that counsel has attempted to comply with the court’s directive, but that Mr. Shaaban would prefer to file a pro se petition for rehearingraising the issues that he believes should be raised. Accordingly, I grant counsel’s motion to withdraw andpermit Mr. Shaaban to file a pro se petition for rehearing within 30 days.

I TI S S O O RDERED

USCA-02-C-0072—5-1-08
Editorial Note on Part 11
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 11 appear at 61 FR 18052, April 24, 1996.

§ 11.45 Where and when do I file my comments? ( a ) Send your comments to the location specified in the rulemaking document on which you are commenting. If you are asked to send your comments to the Federal Document Management System, you may send them in either of the following ways: ( 1 ) By mail to: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
( 2 ) Through the Internet to *http://www.regulations.gov .*
( 3 ) In any other manner designated by FAA.
( b ) Make sure that your comments reach us by the deadline set out in the rulemaking document on which you are commenting. We will consider late-filed comments to the extent possible only if they do not significantly delay the rulemaking process.
( c ) We may reject your paper or electronic comments if they are frivolous, abusive, or repetitious. We may reject comments you file electronically if you do not follow the electronic filing instructions at the Federal Docket Management System Web site.
[Doc. No. 1999-6622, 65 FR 50863, Aug. 21, 2000, as amended at 72 FR 68474, Dec. 5, 2007]
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

                            SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION

I, Steven A. Odom, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of Verso
Technologies, Inc. (the "Company"), do hereby certify in accordance with 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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period
            ended September 30, 2002 (the "Periodic Report") fully complies with
            the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
            Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. Sections 78m or 78o(d)); and

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

      Dated: November 13, 2002


                                                  /s/ Steven A. Odom
                                                  ------------------
                                                  STEVEN A. ODOM
                                                  Chairman of the Board and
                                                  Chief Executive Officer
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO 

In re: 

THE FINANCIAL OVERSIGHT AND 

MANAGEMENT BOARD FOR PUERTO RICO, 

as representative of 

THE COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO, 

et. al.

Debtors1

 

PROMESA 

Title III 

Case No. 17-BK-03283 (LTS) 

(Jointly Administered) 

In re: 

THE FINANCIAL OVERSIGHT AND 

MANAGEMENT BOARD FOR PUERTO RICO, 

as representative of 

PUERTO RICO ELECTRIC POWER 

AUTHORITY (“PREPA”) 

Debtor2

 

PROMESA 

Title III 

Case No. 17-BK-04780 (LTS) 

(Jointly Administered) 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

TO THE HONORABLE COURT 

 The undersigned hereby certifies that I caused true and correct copies of the Third Interim 

Fee Application of King & Spalding LLP for compensation for services rendered and 

reimbursement of expenses incurred as attorneys for the Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority, 

for the period February 1, 2023 through May 31, 2023 as Docket No. 24742 in Case No. 17-BK1 The Debtors in the relevant Title III cases, along with their respective Title III case number listed as a 

bankruptcy case number and the last four (4) digits of each Debtor’s federal tax identification number 

are as follows: (i) Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (Bankruptcy Case No. 17-BK- 3283 (LTS)) (Last Four 

Digits of Federal Tax ID: 3481); and (ii) Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority (“PREPA”) (Bankruptcy 

Case No. 17-BK-4780) (Last Four Digits of Federal Tax ID: 3747).

2 See note 1. 

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:24783 Filed:07/19/23 Entered:07/19/23 14:15:57 Desc: Main

Document Page 1 of 2
03283 (LTS) and as Docket No. 3850 in Case No. 17-BK-04780 (LTS) (the “Application”), served 

in the following manner on July 17 and 18, 2023: 

1. Electronically through the Court’s CM/ECF system in Case No. 17-03283 (LTS) and 

in Case No. 17-04780 (LTS); 

2. By U.S. mail to each of the parties listed in Exhibit A attached hereto; 

3. By e-mail to each of the parties listed in Exhibit B attached hereto, and; 

4. By FedEx overnight delivery to the chambers of the Honorable Laura Taylor Swain at 

the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Daniel P. 

Moynihan U.S. Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, Suite 3212, New York, NY 10007. 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED. 

 In San Juan, Puerto Rico, this 19th day of July, 2023. 

SANCHEZ LRV LLC 

270 Muñoz Rivera Avenue, Suite 1110 

San Juan, Puerto Rico 00918 

Tel. 787-522-6776 

Fax 787-522-6777 

s/ Janelle Reyes-Maisonet

Janelle Reyes-Maisonet 

USDC-PR 231102 

jreyes@sanchezlrv.com 

Counsel for King & Spalding LLP

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:24783 Filed:07/19/23 Entered:07/19/23 14:15:57 Desc: Main

Document Page 2 of 2
i i i i i i

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-09-00822-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF M.M.G.

From the 57th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2006-PA-02380

Honorable Charles E. Montemayor, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Delivered and Filed: March 17, 2010

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION

Appellant’s brief, which was due on February 1, 2010, has not been filed. On February 10,

2010, this court ordered appellant to show cause in writing by February 25, 2010, why this appeal

should not be dismissed for want of prosecution. Appellant did not respond. The appeal is

dismissed for want of prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b). 

PER CURIAM
#### § 125.143 Firewalls.

Each engine, auxiliary power unit, fuel-burning heater, or other item of combusting equipment that is intended for operation in flight must be isolated from the rest of the airplane by means of firewalls or shrouds, or by other equivalent means.
#### § 1261.102 Maximum amount.

From October 1, 1982, to October 30, 1988, the maximum amount that may be paid under the Military Personnel and Civilian Employees' Claim Act of 1964, as amended (31 U.S.C. 3721) is $25,000, and on or after October 31, 1988, the maximum amount is $40,000 (Pub. L. 100-565, 102 Stat. 2833, October 31, 1988).

[54 FR 35456, Aug. 28, 1989]
§ 1261.306 Evidence and information required. ( a ) The circumstances alleged to have given rise to the claim, and the amount claimed, should, so far as possible, be substantiated by competent evidence. Supporting statements, estimates, and the like should, if possible, be obtained from disinterested parties. For specific guidance as to Federal Tort Claims Act claims, see Department of Justice regulations on “Administrative Claims under Federal Tort Claims Act” at 28 CFR part 14.
( b ) In addition to the evidence and information required under paragraph (a), any claimant shall be required to submit information as to the amount of money or other property received as damages or compensation, or which the claimant may be entitled to receive, by reason of the claimed injury, loss, or death from persons other than NASA or NASA employees. (Such persons include, but are not limited to, insurers, employers, and persons whose conduct was a cause of the accident or incident.)
( c ) Any document in other than the English language should be accompanied by an English translation.
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3379 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.3379

                       One Hundred Eighth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE FIRST SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
           the seventh day of January, two thousand and three

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
   3210 East 10th Street in Bloomington, Indiana, as the ``Francis X. 
                    McCloskey Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The facility of the United States Postal Service located at 3210 
East 10th Street in Bloomington, Indiana, shall be known and designated 
as the ``Francis X. McCloskey Post Office Building''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the facility referred to in section 1 
shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Francis X. McCloskey Post 
Office Building''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
CERTIFICATIONS 

I, Anthony Jurak, certifythat: 

1.              I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the annual report on Form 10-KSB of Jurak Corporation World          Wide, Inc.; 

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

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

    a)                 designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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 annual report is being prepared; 

    b)                 evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and          procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this annual          report (the “Evaluation Date”); and 

    c)                 presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the          disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation          Date;
5.     I havedisclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the           registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of           directors (orpersons performing the equivalent functions):  

    a)                 all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls          which could adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process,          summarize and report financial data and have identified for the          registrant’s auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and 

    b)                 any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees          who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal controls; andDate: January 28, 2005  Signed: /s/ Anthony Jurak  Name: Anthony Jurak Title: Chief Executive Officer and principal financial officer
* TheHonorable Pasco M. Bowman stepped down as Chief Judge of the United

States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit at the end of the day on April 23, 1999. He has been succeeded by the Honorable Roger L. Wollman.



## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 98-3961

___________ Lillian Carter, * * Appellant, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the Western v. * District of Arkansas. * Provident Life and Accident Insurance * [UNPUBLISHED] Company, * * Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: April 23, 1999

Filed: April 28, 1999

___________ Before BOWMAN, * Chief Judge, ROSS, and FAGG, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Lillian Carter appeals from an adverse judgment in Carter's action brought under the Employment Retirement Security Act to recover accidental death insurance benefits following the death of her husband. Having reviewed the record in the context of Carter's contentions, we conclude that no error of law appears in the district court's-2-

rulingand that an extended discussion is unnecessary. We thus affirm for the reasons stated in the district court's ruling. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
§ 121.903 General requirements for Advanced Qualification Programs. ( a ) A curriculum approved under an AQP may include elements of existing training programs under part 121 and part 135 of this chapter. Each curriculum must specify the make, model, series or variant of aircraft and each crewmember position or other positions to be covered by that curriculum. Positions to be covered by the AQP must include all flight crewmember positions, flight instructors, and evaluators and may include other positions, such as flight attendants, aircraft dispatchers, and other operations personnel.
( b ) Each certificate holder that obtains approval of an AQP under this subpart must comply with all the requirements of the AQP and this subpart instead of the corresponding provisions of parts 61, 63, 65, 121, or 135 of this chapter. However, each applicable requirement of parts 61, 63, 65, 121, or 135 of this chapter, including but not limited to practical test requirements, that is not specifically addressed in the AQP continues to apply to the certificate holder and to the individuals being trained and qualified by the certificate holder. No person may be trained under an AQP unless that AQP has been approved by the FAA and the person complies with all the requirements of the AQP and this subpart.
( c ) No certificate holder that conducts its training program under this subpart may use any person nor may any person serve in any duty position as a required crewmember, an aircraft dispatcher, an instructor, or an evaluator, unless that person has satisfactorily accomplished, in a training program approved under this subpart for the certificate holder, the training and evaluation of proficiency required by the AQP for that type airplane and duty position.
( d ) All documentation and data required under this subpart must be submitted in a form and manner acceptable to the FAA.
( e ) Any training or evaluation required under an AQP that is satisfactorily completed in the calendar month before or the calendar month after the calendar month in which it is due is considered to have been completed in the calendar month it was due.
## In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07 - 13 - 00265 - CV IN RE KRISS CAMP, RE LATOR ORIGINAL PROCEEDING 

### June 25 , 2014 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ. Relator, Kriss Camp, appearing pro se, has filed a motion for leave to file a petition for writ of mandamus and a petition for writ of mandamus . In the petition he seeks an order compelling respondent, the Honorable Don R. Emerson, judge of the 320th District Court of Potter County , to vacate a judgment in an underlying divorce proceeding and grant relator a new trial . Chief among relator’s complaints seems to be that Judge Emerson rendered a judgment declaring relator’s marriage void in contradiction of this court’s mandate in Camp v. Camp
. 1 We will deny relator’s petition
.

1 Camp v. Camp, No. 07 - 11 - 00282 - CV, 2012 Tex. App. Lexis 6473 (Tex. App. — Amarillo Aug. 3, 2012, no pet.) (mem. op.) (reversing and remanding case for new trial)
.2

The writ of mandamus will issue to correct a clear abuse of discretion or the violation of a duty imposed by law when there is no adequate remedy available by appeal. In re Prudential Ins. Co. of America, 148 S.W.3d 124, 135 - 36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). The relator must generall y bring forward all that is necessary to establish a claim for relief. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 52.7; Dallas Morning News v. Fifth Court of Appeals, 842 S.W.2d 655, 658 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding) . This includes providing an adequate record to substantiate the allegations contained in the petition for writ of mandamus. Dallas Morning News, 842 S.W.2d at 658; Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding)
. Absent a sufficient record, mandamus will not issue. Id. None of relator’s fa ctual allegations are supported by citation to evidence included in the appendix or record. T EX . R. A PP . P. 52.3(g); 52.3(j) (required certification). Indeed, the petition is not accompanied by anything even approximating a proper appendix or record. T E X . R. A PP . P. 52.3(k) (appendix); 52.7 (record). Further we are not shown why the complaints relator raises were incapable of resolution by appeal. In this way, nothing shows how any action by Judge Emerson threatens interference with our judgment in Cam p v. Camp
. Upjohn Co. v. Marshall, 843 S.W.2d 203, 204 (Tex. App.
— Dallas 1992, orig. proceeding ). We therefore must, and do, deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus. His request for leave to file a petition for writ of mandamus is dismissed as moo t. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 52, Notes and Comments (“ The requirement of a motion for leave in or iginal proceedings is repealed” ) ; T EX . R. A PP . P. 52.1; In re Bryant, No . 07 - 11 - 0052 - CV , 20113

Tex. App. Lexis 1421, at *5 n.4 (Tex. App.
— Amarillo Feb. 25, 2011, ori g. proceeding) (per curiam, mem. op.).
James T. Campbell Justice