alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1 

IN THE 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. 

PROMESA Title III. 

Case No. 17 BK 3283-LTS 

(Jointly Administered) 

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE AND REQUEST FOR NOTICE 

TO THE HONORABLE BANKRUPTCY COURT: 

COMES NOW the undersigned counsel for and on behalf of creditor NEOMED 

CENTER, INC., formerly known as Gurabo Community Health Center, Inc., for all purposes in 

connection with this case. Pursuant to Bankruptcy Rules 2002, 3017, and 9010(b) the 

undersigned hereby requests service of all notices, applications, motions, orders, pleadings, 

reports, plans and disclosure statements filed or served in this case, and requests that the name 

and address of the undersigned be added to all mailing matrices in this case. Service may be 

made and directed as follows: 

 Iyen A. Acosta 

Reno & Cavanaugh, PLLC 

455 Massachusetts Avenue, NW 

Suite 400 

Washington, DC 20001 

Telephone: (202) 349-2470 

Facsimile: (202) 349-2471 

Email: iacosta@renocavanaugh.com 

This notice of appearance and request for notices is submitted for the limited purpose of 

receiving copies of notices, pleadings, judgments, and orders in this case. By submitting this 

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3347 Filed:06/25/18 Entered:06/25/18 17:30:22 Desc: Main

Document Page 1 of 3
2 

notice of appearance and request for notices, NEOMED CENTER, INC. is not consenting to or 

submitting to the jurisdiction of the Bankruptcy Court for any purpose and expressly reserve the 

right to contest the jurisdiction of the Bankruptcy Court and/or to demand a jury trial in any 

matter or proceeding to which NEOMED CENTER, INC. may be a party. 

Respectfully submitted, 

 /s/ María Celeste Rodríguez Miranda 

María Celeste Rodríguez Miranda 

D.P.R. Bar No. 213113 

Bufete Rodríguez Miranda, C.S.P. 

P.O. Box 365072 

San Juan, PR 00936-5072 

(787) 408-0808 (tel) 

mcrm100@msn.com 

/s/Iyen A. Acosta 

Iyen A. Acosta* 

Reno & Cavanaugh, PLLC 

455 Massachusetts Avenue, NW 

Suite 400 

Washington, DC 20001 

(202) 349-2470 (office) 

(202) 349-2471 (fax) 

iacosta@renocavanaugh.com 

*Admitted pro hac vice 

Attorneys for Neomed Center, Inc., formerly 

known as Gurabo Community Health 

Center, Inc. 

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3347 Filed:06/25/18 Entered:06/25/18 17:30:22 Desc: Main

Document Page 2 of 3
3 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

 I hereby certify that on June 25, 2018, a copy of the foregoing was filed electronically. 

Notice of this filing will be sent by operation of the Court’s electronic filing system to all parties 

indicated on the electronic filing receipt. Parties may access this filing through the Court’s 

electronic filing system. 

/s/Iyen A. Acosta 

Iyen A. Acosta 

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3347 Filed:06/25/18 Entered:06/25/18 17:30:22 Desc: Main

Document Page 3 of 3
#### § 23.1529 Instructions for continued airworthiness.

The applicant must prepare Instructions for Continued Airworthiness, in accordance with appendix A of this part, that are acceptable to the Administrator. The instructions may be incomplete at type certification if a program exists to ensure their completion prior to delivery of the first airplane or issuance of a standard certificate of airworthiness, whichever occurs later.
### ChiefJustice**^^♦^^** 

### Clerk James T. Worthen ^oaim***^ Cathy S. Lusk 

### Twelfth Court ofAppeals Justices Chief StaffAttorney Sam Griffith Margaret Hussey Diane DeVasto 

### Thursday, January 13, 2005

Ms. Susan D. Bonnen Mr. E. Robert Human 

### Assistant Attorney General Flowers Davis, PLCC 

### Transportation Division 1021 ESE Loop 323 P.O. Box 12548 Suite 200 

### Austin, TX 78711 -2548 Tyler, TX 75701
Ms. Celia S. Flowers Flowers-Davis, PLLC 1021 ESE Loop 323 Suite 200 

### Tyler, TX 75701
RE: Case Number: 12-04-00010-CV Trial Court Case Number: 44,45 6-A 

### Style: The State ofTexas

v. Donald Howard Davis 

### You are hereby notified that in the above-described case, the following decision and order was this day made arid entered by this Court: "THIS DAY came on for review the status of the instant appeal. Due to Mr. Robert E. Human's failure to comply with this Court's letter ofOctober 18, 2004, the clerk's telephone call ofNovember 29, 2004, requesting proofofreinstatement to the State Bar, and this Court's order entered on December 16, 2004, it is hereby ORDERED that Mr. E. Robert Human is 

### hereby removed as lead counsel for the Appellee and Ms. Celia Flowers is placed on the docket as lead counsel for the Appellee." Very truly yours, CATHY S. LUSK, CLERK 

### By: 

# J Katrina McClenny, ChiefDepuffClerk

1517 West Front Street • Suite 354 • Tyler, TX 75702 • Tel: 903-593-8471 • Fax: 903-593-2193 ServingAnderson, Cherokee, Gregg, Henderson, Hopkins, Houston, Kaufman, Nacogdoches, Panola, Rains, Rusk, Sabine, SanAugustine, Shelby, Smith Upshur, VanZandt and WoodCounties www.12thcoa.courts.state.tx.us
§ 614.4357 Banks for cooperatives look-through notes. Where a bank for cooperatives makes a loan to an eligible borrower that is secured by notes of individuals or business entities, the basic lending limits provided in § 614.4355 may be applied to each original notemaker rather than to the loan to the eligible borrower, if: ( a ) Each note is current and carries a full recourse endorsement or unconditional guarantee by the borrower;
( b ) The bank determines the financial condition, repayment capacity, and other credit factors of the loan to the original maker reasonably justify the credit granted by the endorser; and
( c ) The loans are fully supported by documented loan files, which include, at a minimum: ( 1 ) A credit report supporting the bank's finding that the financial condition, repayment capacity, and other factors of the maker of the notes being pledged justify the credit extended by the bank and/or endorser;
( 2 ) A certification by a bank officer designated for that purpose by the loan or executive committee that the financial responsibility of the original notemaker has been evaluated by the loan committee and the bank is relying primarily on each such maker for the payment of the obligation; and
( 3 ) Other credit information normally required of a borrower when making and administering a loan.
[58 FR 40321, July 28, 1993. Redesignated at 64 FR 34517, June 28, 1999]
## ELECTRONIC RECORD
COA # 11-14-00258-CR 

## Marcus Dwight Boothv. STYLE: The State ofTexas COA DISPOSITION: DISMISSED 

### OFFENSE: 1 

### COUNTY: Midland TRIAL COURT: 385th District Court DATE: 10/16/14 Publish: NO TC CASE #: CR42435 COA DISPOSITION: DISMISSED TRIAL COURT: 385th District Court DATE: 10/16/14 Publish: NO TC CASE #: CR42435



### IN THE COURTOF CRIMINALAPPEALS 

## Marcus DwightBoothv. STYLE: The State ofTexas 

# PRO SE Petition 

# 14*0-/V CCA #: PD-1459-14 

### CCA Disposition: FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IN CCA IS: DATE: 

## KzW&3> JUDGE: 

# DATE: 0$h$lMLr SIGNED: PC: 

### JUDGE: rM L/jIAsl4*^- PUBLISH: DNP:
MOTION FOR REHEARING IN CCA IS: JUDGE: 

### ELECTRONIC RECORD
#### § 189.1 Scope.

This part describes the kinds of messages that may be transmitted or relayed by FAA Flight Service Stations.
§ 222.3 Application for Statement of Authorization. ( a ) Application for a Statement of Authorization shall be filed with the Department's Foreign Air Carrier Licensing Division, Office of International Aviation, in duplicate, on OST Form 4500. In most cases, the Department will act upon applications for Statements of Authorization within 60 days.
( b ) Persons objecting to an application for a Statement of Authorization shall file their objections with the Foreign Air Carrier Licensing Division, Office of International Aviation, within 28 days of the filing date of the application. The Department will list the names and nationalities of all persons applying for Statements of Authorization in its Weekly Summary of Filings.
( c ) An application shall include a copy of any bilateral agreement, memorandum of consultations, or diplomatic note or letter, in support of the authority requested. Documents that appear in official U.S. publications may be incorporated by reference.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 3024-0045) [ER-1228, 46 FR 32556, June 24, 1981, as amended by ER-1348, 48 FR 31635, July 11, 1983; Doc. No. DOT-OST-2014-0140, 84 FR 15930, Apr. 16, 2019]
###### Editorial Note on Part 213

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 213 appear at 61 FR 34725, July 3, 1996.

#### § 213.2 Reports of traffic data.

The Department may at any time require any foreign air carrier to file with the Department traffic data disclosing the nature and extent of such carrier's engagement in transportation between points in the United States and points outside thereof. The Department will specify the traffic data required in each such instance. Interested persons seeking reconsideration of a Department determination under this section may file a petition pursuant to § 302.14 of this chapter (Rule 14 of part 302) within 10 days after Department action.

[ER-624, 35 FR 8881, June 9, 1970, as amended at 65 FR 6456, Feb. 9, 2000; Doc. No. DOT-OST-2014-0140, 84 FR 15925, Apr. 16, 2019]
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

February 1, 2023

No. 04-22-00800-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF E.A.R., E.A.R., E.A.R. AND E.A.R., CHILDREN

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

Trial Court No. 2021-PA-00214

Honorable Linda A. Rodriguez, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

This is an accelerated appeal of an order terminating the appellants’ parental rights, 

which must be disposed of by this Court within 180 days of the date the notice of appeal is filed. 

TEX. R. JUD. ADMIN. 6.2. Appellants’ briefs were due January 23, 2023. Both Appellant E.J. and 

Appellant A.V.R. have filed motions for extension of time to file their respective briefs. 

Appellants’ motions are GRANTED. Appellants’ briefs are due February 13, 2023. 

Given the time constraints governing the disposition of this appeal, further requests for 

extensions of time will be disfavored.

It is so ORDERED February 1, 2023.

PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO:__________________________

 MICHAEL A. CRUZ, 

 CLERK OF COURT
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You havereached the Federal Depository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC)Archive. This archive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC.Access to publications in the archive is available through GPO's suite ofcataloging and locator services, including the Catalog of U.S. GovernmentPublications.  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the eventthat publications are no longer available from the original publishing agencysite. (Historical purposes)

**Title:** NSP Termination Act
 
SuDoc: Y 1.1/8:112-32/
Item Number: 1008-I (online)
CGP System Number: 000813970
 
Part1 | Part 2
###### Editorial Note on Part 221

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 221 appear at 84 FR 15929, Apr. 16, 2019.

#### § 221.71 Requirement of clarity and specificity.

Amendments to tariffs shall identify with specificity and clarity the material being amended and the changes being made. Amendments to paper tariffs shall be accomplished by reissuing each page upon which a change occurs with the change made and identified by uniform amendment symbols. Each revised page shall identify and cancel the previously effective page, show the effective date of the previous page, and show the intended effective date of the revised page. Amendments in electronic format shall conform to the requirements of § 221.202 and other applicable provisions of subpart R.
#### Harry F. Baker *vs.*The Vuono Construction Company.

Third Judicial District.

Argued June 6th

decided July 27th, 1916.

Action to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been caused by the defendant’s negligence, brought to the Superior Court in Fairfield County where the plaintiff was nonsuited in a trial to the jury before *Gager, J.,*and from the refusal of the court to set aside this judgment the plaintiff appealed.

*No error.*

*John C. Chamberlain*and *George P. Rowell,*for the appellant (plaintiff).

*John S. Pullman,*for the appellee (defendant).

Per Curiam.

The plaintiff, a carpenter accustomed to working on buildings of modem construction, was engaged with others at the time of the accident in moving a heavy iron beam toward the place where it was to be used in the construction of a schoolhouse. The lower end of the beam rested, for about one half of its width, upon a plank laid on the cellar bottom, and the other end was elevated by a crib-work built near the middle of the beam for that purpose. The beam rested at an angle to a partition wall with its lower end close to the wall. An order was given, as the plaintiff heard it, to swing the beam around so as to load it on to a dolly roll and move it along. The customary method of straightening out a beam so situated was, as the plaintiff knew, to bear down on *716the high end and swing the other end around. That was attempted to be done in this case. Some of the men bore down on the high end of the beam, and the plaintiff picked up a crowbar, went to the lower end of the beam, found that he could accomplish nothing there because half of the beam was on the plank and the space was too narrow, and then stepped over the beam, intending to use the bar through an.open doorway in the partition wall. In doing this he put his left foot down into a narrow space between the beam and the footing of the wall.. At that moment the beam canted sideways against the wall and crushed his leg above the ankle. Admittedly the crib-work stood firm and the canting of the beam was permitted because only half its width rested on the plank at its lower end, a fact known to the plaintiff, who had just been looking at it. It does not appear that it was necessary for the plaintiff to put his foot between the beam and the wall, or that he might not have stepped over the beam into the doorway where he would have been safe.

The only negligence alleged on the defendant’s part is in giving the order to bear down on the high end of the beam at a time when the plaintiff was in a place of danger. But the plaintiff’s own testimony is that he was in a safe place when he heard the order, and then put his foot into a place whose danger was as apparent to him as to anybody. Assuming that the defendant was negligent, the plaintiff was, on his own testimony, clearly guilty of contributory negligence, and the non-suit was properly granted.

There is no error.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

June 9, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh 129614 Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 129614 COA: 260369 Kent CC: 99-004389-FC WILLIAM JERMIC HAEL CARTER, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 16, 2005 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered. We direct the Clerk to schedule oral argument on whether to grant the application or take ot her peremptory action. MCR 7.302(G)(1). The parties are di rected to file supplemental br iefs within 42 days of the date of this order addressing: (1) whethe r defendant is entitled to resentencing, and (2) whether this Co urt's statement in People v Francisco , 474 Mich 82, 89, n 8 (2006), that resentencing is not requi red where the trial court clearly indicates that it would have imposed the same sentence regardless of the sc oring error, applies to situations where the trial court so concludes only after th e original sentencing proceeding.

d0606 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

June 9, 2006

Clerk
EXHIBIT 23

                      CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We  hereby  consent  to  the   incorporation  by  reference  in  the  Prospectus
constituting  part of the Registration  Statement on Form S-4  (Registration No.
333-52797) of our report dated  January 29, 1999  appearing in the Annual Report
of Central  Hudson Gas &  Electric  Corporation  on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 1998.

/S/ PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP    
----------------------------------

PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP

New York, New York
March 1, 1999


<PAGE>
FutureFuel Corp. 

8235 Forsyth Blvd., 4th Floor, Clayton, Missouri 63105 

Direct Line: (805) 565-9800 Fax: (805) 565-0800 

August 10, 2012 

Mr. Karl Simon, Director 

Transportation and Climate Division 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Washington, D.C. 20004 

Re: RFS2 

Dear Mr. Simon: 

The record setting drought in the central part of the country is generating significant concerns 

across the nation and around the world regarding the price and availability of food and feed. As 

a result Congress is considering what action should be taken to ensure the availability and 

affordability of food and feed. 

There is a significant ongoing discussion regarding the impact that the use of ethanol for fuel is 

having on the price and availability of corn. Much of the discussion is in regard to suspending or 

reducing the fuel use requirements for corn ethanol established under the Energy Independence 

and Security Act of 2007 (EISA). EISA established a second set of Renewable Fuel Standards 

(RFS2) for use of corn ethanol and several types of “advanced biofuels” as transportation fuel. 

Biodiesel is defined by the RFS2 as an advanced biofuel. It is extremely important for the 

members of Congress and to distinguish corn ethanol from biodiesel both in terms of the final 

product and the feedstock used. Biodiesel is produced from fats and oils, a significant portion 

of which are inedible. Biodiesel produced by Future Fuel and other biodiesel manufacturers has 

no direct impact on the demand for or the consumption of corn. 

The current discussions regarding RFS2 are negatively affecting Future Fuel’s customers and 

business. Many of our customers are starting to question the need to continue purchasing 

biodiesel if a suspension of the RFS2 or a change to EISA is imminent. 

It is important to FutureFuel and the biodiesel industry that discussions in Congress regarding the 

suspension or modification of the corn ethanol blending requirements are accompanied by 

statements that changes to the advanced biofuel (biodiesel) blending requirements are not being 

contemplated by Congress or requested of the EPA. It must be clearly communicated that any 

possible suspension of or modification to corn ethanol blending requirements will not have any 

impact on biodiesel blending requirements. 
Page 2 

FutureFuel is one of the largest producers in the nation. FutureFuel produces biodiesel from 

inedible feedstocks such as yellow grease, crude corn oil, inedible tallow, choice white 

grease, and poultry fat. 

Biodiesel has been and continues to be a major component of the U.S. effort to lower its reliance 

on foreign oil and improve the environmental impact versus carbon based fuels. It is vital to 

FutureFuel and the employees of FutureFuel that the biodiesel consumption required by the 

RFS2 continues. 

Best regards, 

 

 Lee E. Mikles 

 President & CEO 

 LEM/mc
High Potential Fire

Damage Hazard Soils

0 2 4 8 12 16 20

Miles

Map 37

Harlowton Roundup

T7N

Pompeys 

Pillar

T Big Timber 1N

Billings

T2 Columbus S

Bridger

T8S

R18E R29E Montana

R104W R93W Wyoming

T

57N

Wyoming

Location Map

Montana

Billings

Field 

Office

Ü

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

Billings & Pompeys Pillar 

National Monument RMP / EIS

Source Data: Natural Resources 

Conservation Service (NRCS)

http://soilsdatamart.nrcs.usda.gov

Map scale 1:900,000

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

Public Lands 

Survey System

^ Towns

Highway

Interstate

State Border

Planning Area Boundary

High Potential Fire

Damage Hazard Soils

National Park 

Service

U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service

U.S. Forest

Service

Division of State Lands

Bureau of Reclamation

Bureau of Indian Affairs

Bureau of

Land Management

Private
DPR MODIFIED PROMESA B2500A (Form 2500A) (06/17) 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF PUERTIO RICO

In re , ) Case No. 

Debtors ) 

) Chapter

) 

) 

Plaintiff ) 

) 

v. ) Adv. Proc. No. 

)

) 

Defendant ) 

SUMMONS IN AN ADVERSARY PROCEEDING

YOU ARE SUMMONED and required to file a motion or answer to the complaint which is 

attached to this summons with the clerk of the district court within 30 days after the date of issuance of 

this summons, except that the United States and its officers and agencies shall file a motion or answer 

to the complaint within 35 days. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff`s 

attorney, whose name and address are:

If you make a motion, your time to answer is governed by Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7012. 

If you fail to respond to this summons, your failure will be deemed to be your consent to 

entry of a judgment by the district court and judgment by default may be taken against you for the 

relief demanded in the complaint.

Date:

FRANCES RIOS DE MORAN, ESQ.

CLERK OF COURT

________________________________________

Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk

To: 

THE FINANCIAL OVERSIGHT AND MANAGEMENT BOARD 

FOR PUERTO RICO,

as representative of

THE COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO, et al

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3435-12 Filed:07/05/18 Entered:07/05/18 13:08:30 Desc:

Summons Jose B. Carrion III Page 1 of 2
DPR MODIFIED PROMESA B2500A (Form 2500A) (06/17)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, (name), certify that service of this summons and a copy of 

the complaint was made (date) by:

 Mail service: Regular, first class United States mail, postage fully pre-paid, addressed

to:

 Personal Service: By leaving the process with the defendant or with an officer or agent

of defendant at:

 Residence Service: By leaving the process with the following adult at:

 Certified Mail Service on an Insured Depository Institution: By sending the process by

certified mail addressed to the following officer of the defendant at:

 Publication: The defendant was served as follows: [Describe briefly]

 State Law: The defendant was served pursuant to the laws of the State of , as 

follows: [Describe briefly]

If service was made by personal service, by residence service, or pursuant to state law, I further 

certify that I am, and at all times during the service of process was, not less than 18 years of age and 

not a party to the matter concerning which service of process was made.

Under penalty of perjury, I declare that the foregoing is true and correct.

Date Signature 

Print Name: 

Business Address:

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3435-12 Filed:07/05/18 Entered:07/05/18 13:08:30 Desc:

Summons Jose B. Carrion III Page 2 of 2