alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 25.1011 General. ( a ) Each engine must have an independent oil system that can supply it with an appropriate quantity of oil at a temperature not above that safe for continuous operation.
( b ) The usable oil capacity may not be less than the product of the endurance of the airplane under critical operating conditions and the approved maximum allowable oil consumption of the engine under the same conditions, plus a suitable margin to ensure system circulation. Instead of a rational analysis of airplane range for the purpose of computing oil requirements for reciprocating engine powered airplanes, the following fuel/oil ratios may be used: ( 1 ) For airplanes without a reserve oil or oil transfer system, a fuel/oil ratio of 30:1 by volume.
( 2 ) For airplanes with either a reserve oil or oil transfer system, a fuel/oil ratio of 40:1 by volume.
( c ) Fuel/oil ratios higher than those prescribed in paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section may be used if substantiated by data on actual engine oil consumption.
#### § 253.7 Direct notice of certain terms.

A carrier may not impose any terms restricting refunds of the ticket price, imposing monetary penalties on passengers, or raising the ticket price consistent with § 399.88 of the chapter, unless the passenger receives conspicuous written notice of the salient features of those terms on or with the ticket.

[Doc. No. DOT-OST-2010-0140, 76 FR 23163, Apr. 25, 2011, as amended by Doc. No. DOT-OST-2014-0140, 84 FR 15932, Apr. 16, 2019]
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:2810 Filed:03/26/18 Entered:03/26/18 15:21:30 Desc: Main

Document Page 1 of 5
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:2810 Filed:03/26/18 Entered:03/26/18 15:21:30 Desc: Main

Document Page 2 of 5
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:2810 Filed:03/26/18 Entered:03/26/18 15:21:30 Desc: Main

Document Page 3 of 5
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:2810 Filed:03/26/18 Entered:03/26/18 15:21:30 Desc: Main

Document Page 4 of 5
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:2810 Filed:03/26/18 Entered:03/26/18 15:21:30 Desc: Main

Document Page 5 of 5
1

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

_____________________ _____

09-16-00408-CR

__________________________

_________________________________________________________________ 

On Appeal from the 9th District Court

Montgomery County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 15-07-07300-CR

_________________________________________________________________ 

ORDER

The clerk’s record in the above styled and numbered cause was filed 

December 19, 2016, and the reporter’s record was filed November 15, 2016. 

On January 24, 2017, the appellant’s court-appointed attorney, Robert Bartlett, 

was notified that neither the brief of the appellant nor a motion for extension of 

time to file the brief has been filed. Although the brief of the appellant was due 

to be filed January 18, 2017, the brief has not been filed.

We abate the appeal and remand the case to the trial court to conduct a 

hearing at which a representative of the State, counsel for the appellant, and the 

appellant shall be present in person. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(b)(3). If the 

appellant is not incarcerated, but fails to appear at the hearing after having been 

JOSHUA THOMAS MARRA

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS
2

notified to do so, or after reasonable attempts to notify him have been made, 

then the trial court may enter a finding that appellant no longer desires to 

pursue the appeal and send said finding to this Court. See Tex. R. App. P.

38.8(b)(4). If the appellant is present for the hearing, we direct the trial court 

to determine whether or not appellant desires to pursue his appeal. If appellant 

desires to pursue his appeal, we direct the trial court to determine why the brief 

of the appellant has not been filed, why appellant’s counsel has not responded 

to late notices from this Court, and whether good cause exists for appointed 

counsel, Robert Bartlett, to be relieved of his duties as appellate counsel and 

replaced by substitute counsel. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 26.04(j)(2) 

(West Supp. 2016). If the trial court determines that good cause exists to 

relieve appointed counsel of his duties, we direct the trial court to appoint 

substitute counsel.

The record of the hearing, including any orders and findings of the trial 

court judge, shall be sent to the appellate court for filing. The court reporter’s 

record of the hearing and the clerk’s record containing the recommendations of 

the trial court judge are to be filed on or before Tuesday, March 14, 2017.

ORDER ENTERED February 14, 2017.

PER CURIAM

Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:282 Filed:06/09/17 Entered:06/09/17 11:52:51 Desc: Main

Document Page 1 of 7
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:282 Filed:06/09/17 Entered:06/09/17 11:52:51 Desc: Main

Document Page 2 of 7
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:282 Filed:06/09/17 Entered:06/09/17 11:52:51 Desc: Main

Document Page 3 of 7
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:282 Filed:06/09/17 Entered:06/09/17 11:52:51 Desc: Main

Document Page 4 of 7
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:282 Filed:06/09/17 Entered:06/09/17 11:52:51 Desc: Main

Document Page 5 of 7
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:282 Filed:06/09/17 Entered:06/09/17 11:52:51 Desc: Main

Document Page 6 of 7
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:282 Filed:06/09/17 Entered:06/09/17 11:52:51 Desc: Main

Document Page 7 of 7
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 87 (Thursday, May 4, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 25973]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-11161]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary


Aviation Proceedings, Agreements Filed During the Week Ending 
March 24, 2000

    The following Agreements were filed with the Department of 
Transportation under the provisions of 49 U.S.C. Sections 412 and 414. 
Answers may be filed within 21 days after the filing of the 
application.
    Docket Number: OST-2000-7120.
    Date Filed: March 23, 2000.
    Parties: Members of the International Air Transport Association.
    Subject: PTC COMP 0594 dated 21 March 2000; Mail Vote 070--
Resolution 010h; Special Passenger Currency Conversion Resolution--
euro.
    Intended effective date: 1 April 2000.

    Docket Number: OST-2000-7133.
    Date Filed: March 24, 2000.
    Parties: Members of the International Air Transport Association.
    Subject: PTC2 ME-AFR 0049 dated 24 March 2000; Mail Vote 072--TC2 
Middle East-Africa Special Passenger; Amending Resolution.
    Intended effective date: 1 April 2000.

Andrea M. Jenkins,
Federal Register Liaison.
[FR Doc. 00-11161 Filed 5-3-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-62-P
Regulator·y Evaluation 

Docket No. FAA- Directorate Identifier: 14-AD-54 

,1dd rhl! work hours. parts cosr, ond numher (!/ C5>. rf!~istered prud11cts To the ra.hll! he/ow. JFhen yo11 are 

finished. dick on rhl! .. Ur)(lute Field,· ., hull on ru muomatica/lyji/1 in tlu! totals. 

Update Fields I 

Estimated Costs: 

Action Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine, 

(e.g., Inspection, propeller, appliance) 

Work-hours Labor Parts Cost Total Costs Number of Total Cost replacement) 

Do (include cost (labor + u.s. for U.S. Fleet not include oncondition costs here access, testing, (@$85/h parts) Registered 

and close-up) our) Products 

Replacement of trigger 

mechanism $2236 components - forward 15 302 

and aft entry/service 

doors 

Replacement of trigger 

mechanism 

7.5 $1118 302 components - mid 

entry/service doors 

' 

The known number of products in compliance: '\ u111 her 

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $1,590,483 

Costs covered under warranty (if lcnown) $ \\arran!.' 

On-Condition Costs: ~ 
Action Work-hours Labor cost Parts Cost Cost per Product 

(e.g., Inspection, (include access, (@$85/hour) 

replacement) testing, and closeuo) 

Inspection 

Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use this field to explain any thing in the Estimated Costs table 

that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs): 

Executive Order 12866: 

Could the AD be considered a "significant regul atory action"?--

YES* 0 NO 181 

*Explanation: 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures: 

Is the AD significant? • 

YES* 0 NO 181 

*Explanation: 

Regulatory Flexibility Act: 

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Explain for 

e ither a Yes or No answer . • 

YES 0 NO 181 

Explanation: 

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska: 

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for 

aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode oftransp01tation? G 

YES* 0 NO 181 

*Explanation:
#### §§ 247.2-247.10 [Reserved]
§ 1253.520 Job classification and structure. A recipient shall not: ( a ) Classify a job as being for males or for females;
( b ) Maintain or establish separate lines of progression, seniority lists, career ladders, or tenure systems based on sex; or
( c ) Maintain or establish separate lines of progression, seniority systems, career ladders, or tenure systems for similar jobs, position descriptions, or job requirements that classify persons on the basis of sex, unless sex is a bona fide occupational qualification for the positions in question as set forth in § 1253.550.
IB 

House Calendar No. 161

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3713

[Report No. 108–450] 

To designate the Federal building located at 250 West Cherry Street in 

Carbondale, Illinois the ‘‘Senator Paul Simon Federal Building’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 21, 2004

Mr. COSTELLO (for himself, Mr. SHIMKUS, Mr. JOHNSON of Illinois, Mr. 

JACKSON of Illinois, Mr. DAVIS of Illinois, Mr. GUTIERREZ, Mr. EMANUEL, and Mr. KIRK) introduced the following bill; which was referred to 

the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

MARCH 25, 2004

Additional sponsors: Mr. HYDE, Mrs. BIGGERT, Mr. WELLER, Mr. EVANS, 

Mr. LIPINSKI, and Mr. RUSH

MARCH 25, 2004

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed 

A BILL

To designate the Federal building located at 250 West Cherry Street in Carbondale, Illinois the ‘‘Senator Paul 

Simon Federal Building’’.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 3713 RH 

1 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF FEDERAL BUILDING. 

2 The Federal building located at 250 West Cherry 

3 Street in Carbondale, Illinois shall be known and des4 ignated as the ‘‘Senator Paul Simon Federal Building’’. 

5 SEC. 2. REFERENCES. 

6 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 

7 paper or other record of the United States to the Federal 

8 building referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be 

9 a reference to the ‘‘Senator Paul Simon Federal Build10 ing’’. 

House Calendar No. 161

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3713

[Report No. 108–450] 

A BILL

To designate the Federal building located at 250 

‘‘Senator Paul Simon Federal Building’’. West Cherry Street in Carbondale, Illinois the 

MARCH 25, 2004

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 

printed
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
The schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the Company's
balance sheet as of September 30, 1998 and the  Statements of Operations for the
year ended  December  31, 1998 and is  qualified in its entirety by reference to
such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                      0001061148
<NAME>                     Pathnet, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>      1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>     12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END> DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>    JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>               Dec-31-1998
<CASH>                                     57,322
<SECURITIES>                               97,896
<RECEIVABLES>                               3,207
<ALLOWANCES>                                    0
<INVENTORY>                                     0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                          162,479
<PP&E>                                     48,760
<DEPRECIATION>                                789
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                            365,414
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      20,280
<BONDS>                                   346,212
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                      35,970
<PREFERRED>                                     0
<COMMON>                                       29
<OTHER-SE>                               (37,077)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>              365,414
<SALES>                                     1,584
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            1,584
<CGS>                                       7,548
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               7,548
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         32,572
<INCOME-PRETAX>                          (36,297)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                      (36,297)
<DISCONTINUED>                                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 0
<CHANGES>                                       0
<NET-INCOME>                             (36,297)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                             (12.51)
<EPS-DILUTED>                             (12.51)

        



</TABLE>
###### Editorial Note on Part 213

#### Editorial Note:

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

#### § 213.1 Applicability.

This part sets forth terms, conditions, and limitations applicable to foreign air carrier permits issued under section 41302 of Title 49 of the United States Code (Transportation) authorizing scheduled foreign air transportation. Unless such permits or the orders issuing such permits otherwise provide, the exercises of the privileges to engage in scheduled foreign air transportation granted by any such permit shall be subject to the terms, conditions, and limitations as are set forth in this part, and as may from time to time be prescribed by the Department.

[ER-680, 36 FR 7306, Apr. 17, 1971, as amended at 61 FR 34725, July 3, 1996; Doc. No. DOT-OST-2014-0140, 84 FR 15925, Apr. 16, 2019]
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 84 (Monday, May 1, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 25352]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-10697]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration


Center for Substance Abuse Prevention; Notice of Meeting

    Pursuant to Pub. L. 92-463, notice is hereby given of the meeting 
of the Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) Drug Testing 
Advisory Board to be held in June 2000. A portion of the meeting will 
be open and will include a Department of Health and Human Services drug 
testing program update, a Department of Transportation drug testing 
program update, a review of urine drug testing issues, and a 
presentation of draft policies for alternative specimen testing and on-
site testing.
    If anyone needs special accommodations for persons with 
disabilities, please notify the contact listed below.
    The meeting will also include the review, discussion, and 
evaluation of sensitive National Laboratory Certification Program 
(NLCP) internal operating procedures and program development issues. 
Therefore, a portion of the meeting will be closed to the public as 
determined by the SAMHSA Administrator in accordance with Title 5 
U.S.C. 552b(c)(2), (4), and (6) and 5 U.S.C. App.2, Sec. 10(d).
    A summary of the meeting and a roster of board members may be 
obtained from: Mrs. Giselle Hersh, Division of Workplace Programs, 5600 
Fishers Lane, Rockwall II, Suite 815, Rockville, MD 20857, Telephone: 
(301) 443-6014.
    Substantive program information may be obtained from the contact 
whose name and telephone number is listed below.
    Committee Name: Center for substance Abuse Prevention Drug Testing 
Advisory Board.
    Meeting Date: June 6, 2000; 8:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m., June 7, 2000; 8:30 
a.m.-3:30 p.m.
    Place: Holiday Inn 5520 Wisconsin Avenue, Chevy Chase, Maryland 
20815.
    Type: Open: June 6, 2000; 8:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m.; Closed: June 7, 
2000; 8:30 a.m.-3:30 p.m.
    Contact: Donna M. Bush, Ph.D., Executive Secretary, Telephone: 
(301) 443-6014, and FAX: (301) 443-3031.

    Dated: April 21, 2000.
Toiann Vaughn,
Committee Management Officer, Substance Abuse and Mental Health 
Services Administration.
[FR Doc. 00-10697 Filed 4-28-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4162-20-P
#### Luthur M. Wright *vs.*Frank D. Lawton.

Third Judicial District, Bridgeport,

April Term, 1916.

Prentice, C. J., Thayer, Roraback, Wheeler and Beach, Js.

One stopping on the left-hand side of the street for a lawful purpose— in this case the delivery of groceries in the evening—is under no legal duty to notify persons, approaching from the opposite direction, of his presence there.

The evidence in the present case reviewed and the action of the trial court in setting aside a verdict for the plaintiff sustained, upon the ground that the evidence failed to disclose the exercise of due care upon his part.

Argued April 12th

decided June 2d, 1916.

Action to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the defendant’s servant, brought to the Superior Court in Fairfield County and tried to the jury before *Webb, J:;*the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff for $500 which the trial court set aside as against the evidence, and from this action the plaintiff appealed.

*No error.*

*Henry E. Shannon*and *Edward J. Quinlan,*for the appellant (plaintiff).

*503
      *Nehemiah Candee*and *John Keogh,*for the appellee (defendant).

Per Curiam.

The plaintiff when driving along a public street collided with a grocery wagon then in use by the defendant’s servant in delivering goods for his master. The servant had just driven across from the right to the left side of the street, and had stopped or was in the act of stopping at the curb in front of a house at which he was to deliver groceries. The plaintiff approached from the opposite direction and was upon his right-hand side of the street. The collision occurred in the early evening at a dark place in the street.

The only negligence alleged on the part of the defendant is that the servant was upon the wrong side of the street and gave the plaintiff no notice of the fact. The servant was upon the left-hand side of the street for a lawful purpose, no statute, or ordinance of the city of Norwalk, forbidding it. We think that the facts in evidence raised no duty on his part to notify parties approaching of his presence there.

However this may be, the plaintiff' was bound to know that vehicles and other obstacles were likely to be standing upon that side of the street, and it was his duty to so drive his own team that he could discover and avoid such obstacles if encountered. His evidence shows that he did not discover the defendant’s horse, which was a white one, until he was within fifteen feet of it, and that he could not then avoid hitting the wagon, although he did everything he could to avoid it. If he could not, either by stopping or turning out, avoid colliding with the defendant’s team after he discovered it, either he was negligent in not discovering it earlier, or was negligent in driving so rapidly into a dark street, where he could not see a white object before him until within fifteen feet of it, that he could *504not avoid obstacles when discovered. The evidence thus failed to show that he was not guilty of contributory negligence and the court properly set the verdict aside.

There is no error.
#### § 171.101 Scope.

This subpart sets forth minimum requirements for the approval and operation of non-Federal Simplified Directional Facilities (SDF) that are to be involved in the approval of instrument flight rules and air traffic control procedures related to those facilities.
#### Ogden *v.*The State.

*Violating Prohibition Law.*

(Decided May 11, 1915.

68 South. 701.)

*Appeal and Error; Record; Organization of Court.*— Where the transcript does not contain a caption, as required by rule 26, Supreme Court Practice, nor show that the trial court was held at the place designated by law, or that it was convened or presided over by a judge authorized to hold it, and the certificate of appeal is without signature, the appeal will be dismissed for a failure of the record to show that the judgment was rendered by a court organized pursuant to law.

Appeal from Walker Law and Equity Court.

Heard before Hon. T. L. Sowell.

Sandy Ogden was convicted of violating the prohibition law, and he appeals.

Leith & Gunn, for appellant.

W. L. Maktin, Attorney' General, and J. P. Mudd, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

PELBLAM, P. J.

The transcript in this case does not contain a caption, as required by the rules of court (see rule 26, Supreme Court Rules adopted June 23, 1913, 175 Ala. xix, 61 South, vii); nor does it show that the court trying the case was held at the place designated by law, or that it was convened.or presided over by a judge authorized to hold it. The certificate of appeal certifying to the correctness of the record appears in the transcript in blank without the signature of the attesting officer.

The Attorney General insists in brief that the appeal must be dismissed because of a failure of the record *206to show that the judgment appealed from was rendered by a court organized pursuant to law. The point is well taken, and the appeal must be *dismissed.*—Thomas *v. Daniel Bros.,*42 South. 623; *McPherson v. Wiggins,*40 South. 961; *Grantham v. State,*3 Ala. App. 168, 57 South. 1025; *Pensacola, A. & W. Ry. Co. v. Big Sandy Iron Co.,*147 Ala. 274, 41 South. 418; *Bowen v. State,*9 Ala. App. 664, 62 South. 994; *Gallahar v. Ingram & Co.,*9 Ala. App. 432, 62 South. 989; *City of Demopolis v. Atkeison,*4 Ala. App. 278, 58 South. 684.

Appeal dismissed.
###### Editorial Note on Part 221

#### Editorial Note:

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

#### § 221.122 Special Tariff Permission to be used in its entirety as granted.

Each Special Tariff Permission to file fares, or other tariff provisions on less than statutory notice shall be used in its entirety as granted. If it is not desired to use the permission as granted, and lesser or more extensive or different permission is desired, a new application for Special Tariff Permission conforming with § 221.121 in all respects and referring to the previous permission shall be filed.