alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Editorial Note on Part 21
Editorial Notes: 1. For miscellaneous amendments to cross references in this 21 see Amdt. 21-10, 31 FR 9211, July 6, 1966. 2. Nomenclature changes to part 21 appear at 74 FR 53384, Oct. 16, 2009.

§ 21.25 Issue of type certificate: Restricted category aircraft. ( a ) An applicant is entitled to a type certificate for an aircraft in the restricted category for special purpose operations if he shows compliance with the applicable noise requirements of Part 36 of this chapter, and if he shows that no feature or characteristic of the aircraft makes it unsafe when it is operated under the limitations prescribed for its intended use, and that the aircraft— ( 1 ) Meets the airworthiness requirements of an aircraft category except those requirements that the FAA finds inappropriate for the special purpose for which the aircraft is to be used; or
( 2 ) Is of a type that has been manufactured in accordance with the requirements of and accepted for use by, an Armed Force of the United States and has been later modified for a special purpose.
( b ) For the purposes of this section, “special purpose operations” includes— ( 1 ) Agricultural (spraying, dusting, and seeding, and livestock and predatory animal control);
( 2 ) Forest and wildlife conservation;
( 3 ) Aerial surveying (photography, mapping, and oil and mineral exploration);
( 4 ) Patrolling (pipelines, power lines, and canals);
( 5 ) Weather control (cloud seeding);
( 6 ) Aerial advertising (skywriting, banner towing, airborne signs and public address systems); and
( 7 ) Any other operation specified by the FAA.
[Doc. No. 5085, 29 FR 14564, Oct. 24, 1964, as amended by Amdt. 21-42, 40 FR 1033, Jan. 6, 1975]
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

May 24, 2011 

h0516 

Order 

 

May 24, 2011 

142392 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 142392 

 COA: 292508 

Kalamazoo CC: 2008-001079-FC 

JAMES MELVIN MATTHEWS, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 18, 2010 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed 

June 25, 2013.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-13-00495-CV

IN RE ROBERT PRIMO, Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

WRIT OF MANDAMUS

133rd District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2012-68391

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On June 10, 2013, relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this Court. 

See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. §22.221 (Vernon 2004); see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In 

the petition, relator asks this Court to compel the Honorable Jaclanel McFarland, 

presiding judge of the 133rd District Court of Harris County to vacate two orders. 

The first order, signed May 22, 2013, granted the motion for “death penalty” 

sanctions filed by real party in interest, Scott Rothenberg. The second order, signed
2

May 13, 2013, granted Rothenberg’s motion for no-evidence partial summary 

judgment. On June 12, 2013, relator filed a first amended petition for writ of 

mandamus containing a corrected verification. On June 19, 2013, relator filed a 

second amended petition for writ of mandamus. 

The petition filed on June 19, 2013, complains of the same two orders as 

well as three additional orders. It was therefore filed in this court as 14-13-00532-

CV and renders the petitions filed in 14-13-00495-CV moot. Accordingly, the 

petition for writ of mandamus filed June 10, 2013 and the first amended petition 

filed June 12, 2013, are ordered dismissed as moot.1

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Boyce, Jamison, and Busby.

 

1

The record in 14-13-00495-CV has been transferred to 14-13-00532-CV.
Need to return call by / at/between and

. Signature: Project No.: 0 317.0 2 .005.510 Page 1 of 1

Project Name: DMR20 1 3 

### CBI?

Yes

No TELEPHONE CALL RECOR D

Incoming

Outgoing Date: 02/ 13 /15 Time: 10:03 am

pm

Company Name: South Carolina Department of Health &

Environmental Compliance ERG Staff Name: Kara Edquist

Contact Name: Crystal Rippy Contact Phone Number: ( 803 ) 898

- 3964

General Subject: 2013 DMR Discharges for Mohawk Industries Inc.

– Oak River Facility, Bennettsville, SC



### TOPICS DISCUSSED AND ACTION TAKEN

On February 13 th , 2015 at 10:03 am I called Crystal Rippy and left a message.

On February 13 th , 2015 at 11:08am Crystal Rippy returned my call and explained the permit writer is not in the

office and their system is down but she would be happy to pull the hard copies of the DMR data and call me

back.

On Februa ry 13 th , 2015 at 11:19 Crystal Rippy returned my call and proceeded to confirm the values we have

for June, July, and December and explained the hard copy for November stated the value was <2.5 ug/L. Ms.

Rippy proceeded to read off the facility notes for each month. December, November and June claimed matrix

interference for Toxaphene. July notes state Toxaphene is not used on site.

On February 13, 2015 at 11:42 am I called Crystal Rippy back and left a messag e asking for a copy of the

facility notes to be sent to my email address.

On February 13, 2015 at 4:44pm Crystal Rippy sent copies of the facility notes as an attached PDF for the

months of June, July, November and December as requested.

PDF Attachment s titled:

 Mohawk_OakRiverFacility_Notes_December.pdf

 Mohawk_OakRiverFacility_Notes_July.pdf

 Mohawk_OakRiverFacility_Notes_June.pdf

 Mohawk_OakRiverFacility_Notes_November.pdf
180612 ORDER RE ACEVEDO LIFT STAY EXT VERSION JUNE 12, 2018 1

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.,

Debtors.1

PROMESA

Title III

No. 17 BK 3283-LTS

(Jointly Administered)

ORDER GRANTING ASSENTED-TO URGENT MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF DEADLINES 

IN CONNECTION WITH MOTION BY VIRGILIO F. ACEVEDO FOR RELIEF FROM AUTOMATIC STAY

The Court has received and reviewed the Assented-To Urgent Motion for 

Extension of Deadlines (Docket Entry No. 3287, the “Extension Motion”). The Extension 

Motion is hereby granted to extent provided herein. Opposition papers to the Motion by Virgilio 

F. Acevedo for Relief from Automatic Stay (Docket Entry No. 3163, the “Lift Stay Motion”) must 

be filed by June 29, 2018. Movants’ reply papers must be filed by July 6, 2018. The Court will 

thereafter take the Lift Stay Motion on submission, unless a party thereto requests a hearing. The 

request for an extension of the briefing schedule is deemed to be consent to an extension of the 

period referenced in 11 U.S.C. § 362(e)(1) pending the Court’s determination of the Lift Stay 

Motion.

[Remainder of Page Intentionally Left Blank]

 

1 The Debtors in these Title III Cases, along with each Debtor’s respective Title III case number 

and the last four (4) digits of each Debtor’s federal tax identification number, as applicable, 

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

Digits of Federal Tax ID: 3481); (ii) Puerto Rico Sales Tax Financing Corporation 

(“COFINA”) (Bankruptcy Case No. 17 BK 3284-LTS) (Last Four Digits of Federal Tax ID: 

8474); (iii) Puerto Rico Highways and Transportation Authority (“HTA”) (Bankruptcy Case 

No. 17 BK 3567-LTS) (Last Four Digits of Federal Tax ID: 3808); (iv) Employees Retirement 

System of the Government of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (“ERS”) (Bankruptcy Case 

No. 17 BK 3566-LTS) (Last Four Digits of Federal Tax ID: 9686); and (v) Puerto Rico Electric 

Power Authority (“PREPA”) (Bankruptcy Case No. 17 BK 4780-LTS) (Last Four Digits of 

Federal Tax ID: 3747). (Title III case numbers are listed as Bankruptcy Case numbers due to 

software limitations).

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3288 Filed:06/12/18 Entered:06/12/18 11:40:52 Desc: Main

Document Page 1 of 2
180612 ORDER RE ACEVEDO LIFT STAY EXT VERSION JUNE 12, 2018 2

This order resolves Docket Entry No. 3287 in Case No. 17-3283.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 12, 2018

 /s/ Laura Taylor Swain 

LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN

United States District Judge

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3288 Filed:06/12/18 Entered:06/12/18 11:40:52 Desc: Main

Document Page 2 of 2
1

The Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren, Chief Judge, United States District Court

for the Western District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the

Honorable Beverly Stites Jones, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western

District of Arkansas. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-2958

___________

John A. Carson, *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Commissioner * Western District of Arkansas.

of Social Security Administration, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: October 6, 2006

Filed: October 19, 2006

___________

Before SMITH, MAGILL, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

John Carson appeals the district court’s1

 order affirming the denial of disability

insurance benefits. Following careful review, we conclude that substantial evidence

in the record as a whole, including hearing testimony of a vocational expert, supported

the administrative law judge’s (ALJ’s) finding that Carson, though unable to perform
-2-

his past relevant work as a hair stylist, was not disabled within the meaning of the

Social Security Act because he retained the residual functional capacity (RFC) to

perform certain sedentary jobs which existed in significant numbers in the local and

national ecomony. See Dixon v. Barnhart, 353 F.3d 602, 604-05 (8th Cir. 2003)

(standard of review; substantial evidence is evidence that reasonable person would

find adequate to support decision); Goff v. Barnhart, 421 F.3d 785, 790, 794 (8th Cir.

2005) (if claimant cannot perform past work, Commissioner must prove claimant

retains RFC to do other kinds of work existing in substantial numbers in national

economy; vocational expert’s testimony based on properly phrased hypothetical

question constitutes substantial evidence). In addition, the ALJ offered valid reasons

for discounting Carson’s subjective complaints of pain to the extent alleged, see Goff,

421 F.3d at 792 (this court will not disturb decision of ALJ who considers, but for

good cause expressly discredits, claimant’s complaints of disabling pain), and for

discounting physicians’ unsupported or inconsistent opinions about Carson’s inability

to work, see Prosch v. Apfel, 201 F.3d 1010, 1013 (8th Cir. 2000) (treating

physician’s opinion, though normally entitled to great weight, does not automatically

control and may be discounted or disregarded where inconsistencies undermine

credibility of such opinion).

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-50085 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus GABRIEL CONTRERAS-AREVALO, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. DR-00-CR-401-1-FB

-------------------- August 23, 2001 Before KING, Chief Judge, and POLITZ and PARKER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Gabriel Contreras-Arevalo appeals the 70-month term of imprisonment imposed following his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United States after removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Contreras-Arevalo argues that his sentence should not have exceeded the two-year maximum term of imprisonment prescribed in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). Contreras-Arevalo acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by the Supreme Court’s decision in Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224 (1998), butNo. 01-50085 -2- seeks to preserve the issue for Supreme Court review in light of the decision in Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000). Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres

. See Apprendi , 530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit , 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000), cert. denied , 121 S. Ct. 1214 (2001). Contreras-Arevalo’s argument is foreclosed. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks that the judgment of the district court be affirmed and that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED. AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4111 

To amend title 46, United States Code, to provide for a cause of action 

by the family of a military service member who dies from a collision 

on the high seas, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 30, 2020 

Ms. MCSALLY introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

A BILL 

To amend title 46, United States Code, to provide for a 

cause of action by the family of a military service member who dies from a collision on the high seas, and 

for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Fairness for Families 

5 of Fallen Sailors Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 46. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 303 of title 46, United 

8 States Code, is amended— 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 4111 IS

1 (1) by redesignating section 30308 as section 

2 30309; and 

3 (2) by inserting after section 30307 the fol4 lowing: 

5 ‘‘§ 30308. Death of a member of the Armed Forces 

6 from a collision on the high seas. 

7 ‘‘(a) DEFINITION.—In this section, the term ‘non8 pecuniary damages’ means damages for loss of care, com9 fort, or companionship. 

10 ‘‘(b) MILITARY SERVICE MEMBERS.—In an action 

11 under this chapter, if the death of a member of the Armed 

12 Forces resulted from a collision occurring on the high seas 

13 beyond 12 nautical miles from the shore of the United 

14 States while the decedent was serving physically on board 

15 a United States military vessel, the personal representa16 tive of the decedent may bring a civil action in admiralty 

17 or at law against the person or vessel responsible. The ac18 tion shall be for the exclusive benefit of the decedent’s 

19 spouse, parent, child, dependent relative, or estate. Com20 pensation is recoverable for nonpecuniary and pecuniary 

21 damages. 

22 ‘‘(c) JURY TRIAL.—A claim under this section may 

23 be tried with a jury. 

24 ‘‘(d) GOVERNING LAW.—In an action under this sec25 tion, the maritime law of the United States shall apply. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 4111 IS

1 ‘‘(e) EFFECTIVE DATE.—This section shall apply to 

2 any death occurring after January 1, 2017. 

3 ‘‘(f) GOVERNMENT IMMUNITY.—Nothing in this Act 

4 shall be construed to affect any existing laws or doctrines 

5 establishing governmental immunity from tort-based 

6 claims.’’. 

7 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The analysis at the be8 ginning of such chapter is amended— 

9 (1) by redesignating the item relating to section 

10 30308 as the item relating to section 30309; and 

11 (2) by inserting after the item relating to sec12 tion 30307 the following: 

‘‘30308. Death of a member of the Armed Forces from a collision on the high 

seas.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20
- 7675

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. MCKINLEY EARL MORANT , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Columbia

. Cameron McGowan Currie , Senior District Judge. ( 3:19

- cr - 00307

- CMC

- 1; 3:20

- cv - 02449

- CMC )

Submitted : February 18, 2021 Decided: February 23, 2021

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and FLOYD , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. McKinley Earl Morant, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: McKinley Morant seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 225 5 motion . The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)( B ). A certificate o f appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurist s c ould find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis , 137 S. Ct. 759, 773

- 74 (2017). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispo sitive procedural ruling is debatable and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Gonzalez v. Thaler , 565 U.S. 134, 140

- 41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000))

. We have independently revie wed the record and conclude that Morant has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
#### § 158.81 General.

This subpart contains the procedures for termination of PFCs or loss of Federal airport grant funds for violations of this part or 49 U.S.C. 40117. This subpart does not address the circumstances under which the authority to collect PFCs may be terminated for violations of 49 U.S.C. 47523 through 47528.

[Doc. No. FAA-2006-23730, 72 FR 28851, May 23, 2007]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                       5
<MULTIPLIER>                                 1000

<S>                               <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                         3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               Feb-03-2001
<PERIOD-START>                  Jan-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                    Apr-29-2000
<CASH>                                      4,742
<SECURITIES>                               27,696
<RECEIVABLES>                               6,793
<ALLOWANCES>                                    0
<INVENTORY>                               115,122
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                          158,618
<PP&E>                                    148,936
<DEPRECIATION>                             96,678
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                            222,467
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      30,571
<BONDS>                                    41,906
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           0
<PREFERRED>                                20,000
<COMMON>                                       58
<OTHER-SE>                                117,203
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>              222,467
<SALES>                                    83,743
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           83,743
<CGS>                                      63,822
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              63,822
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                           30,285
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            977
<INCOME-PRETAX>                          (10,585)
<INCOME-TAX>                              (3,705)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             0
<DISCONTINUED>                                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               879
<CHANGES>                                       0
<NET-INCOME>                              (6,001)
<EPS-BASIC>                                (0.38)
<EPS-DILUTED>                              (0.38)



</TABLE>
1 

### T o n g, St a nl ey

Fr o m: S a ng

- M i L ee < s l ee@a q m d.g ov> S e nt: F rid ay , J a nu a r y 15

, 2016 11 : 14 AM
T o: T o ng, St a nl ey C c: K a l a m C h e ung S u b j ec t: FW : Ca l P o rtl a nd Ceme nt a nd R i v e r s id e Ceme nt Pe r m it St a tus

H i S t a n ,

P l e a s e s e e t h e e m ail b e l o w r e g ar d i ng c e m e n t kil n o p e ra t i o n s u s e d t o b e i n t h e S o u t h c o a s t air b asi n. W e c a n d isc u ss f u r t h e r d et ail s du ri ng a c o n f call n e x t w ee k

.

T h a n ks,

S a ng

- M i L e e , P h. D

. P r o g r a m Sup e r v i s o r A ir Q u ali ty M o d e li ng / E m is s i o n s In v e n t o r y S o u t h C o as t A i r Q u ali t y M a n a g e m e n t D i s t ric t 2 1 9 6 5 C o p l e y D r D ia m o nd Bar
, C A 9 2 8 8 6
T e l : 9 0 9

- 39 6

- 3 1 6 9

F r o m: K e v i n O r e lla n a S en t: F ri d a y , J a nu ar y 1 5
, 2 0 1 6 1 1 : 0 0 A M
T o: S a ng

- M i L e e C c: Ga r y Q u i nn ; Jo e Cas s m assi Sub j e c t: Cal Po r t la nd C e m e n t a nd Ri v e rsi d e C e m e n t P e r m i t S t a t u s



### Cal Port l and C em e nt: T he permits f

o r the t w o ce m ent ki l ns h a ve been inact i vate d

. T he facili t y still proc e sses cli n ker from a n other f acili t y , h o w e v e r, but no cl i n k er pro d uction is oc cu rring at t his f a cili t y

.

R i v ers i de C e ment : All perm i ts at t his fa c ility h a ve be e n ina c t i v a ted a nd t h e facil it y is officia ll y sh u t d o w n

.