alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 89 (Monday, May 8, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 26645]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-11384]


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

PRESIDIO TRUST


Notice of Receipt of and Availability for Public Comment on an 
Application for Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Site; The 
Presidio of San Francisco, California

AGENCY: The Presidio Trust.

ACTION: Public notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the Presidio Trust's receipt of and 
availability for public comment on an application from Bay Area 
Cellular Telephone Company, dba Cellular One, for a wireless 
telecommunications facilities site in The Presidio of San Francisco 
(the ``Project''). The proposed location of the Project is in the 
parking area located directly below the Doyle Drive overpass in the 
vicinity of the intersection of Halleck and Vallejo Streets, San 
Francisco, California (the ``Project Site'').
    The Project involves (i) placing a single utility pole and a one-
story equipment building at the Project Site (alternatively, the 
equipment may be housed in an existing building, obviating the need for 
an equipment building), and (ii) removing five existing utility poles 
and lines, burying the lines underground. The utility pole will be 
approximately 50 feet tall. The one-story equipment building will be 9 
feet by 15 feet. Power for the Project will be provided through 
underground coaxial cables connected to existing power sources. 
Connection to telephone lines will be through existing telephone lines.
    Comments: Comments on the proposed Project must be sent to Devon 
Danz, Presidio Trust, 34 Graham Street, PO Box 29052, San Francisco, CA 
94129-0052, and be received by June 7, 2000. A copy of Cellular One's 
application is available upon request to the Presidio Trust.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Devon Danz, Presidio Trust, 34 Graham 
Street, PO Box 29052, San Francisco, CA 94129-0052. Telephone: 415-561-
5300.

    Dated: May 2, 2000.
Karen A. Cook,
General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 00-11384 Filed 5-5-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-4R-P
§ 25.1549 Powerplant and auxiliary power unit instruments. For each required powerplant and auxiliary power unit instrument, as appropriate to the type of instrument— ( a ) Each maximum and, if applicable, minimum safe operating limit must be marked with a red radial or a red line;
( b ) Each normal operating range must be marked with a green arc or green line, not extending beyond the maximum and minimum safe limits;
( c ) Each takeoff and precautionary range must be marked with a yellow arc or a yellow line; and
( d ) Each engine, auxiliary power unit, or propeller speed range that is restricted because of excessive vibration stresses must be marked with red arcs or red lines.
[Amdt. 25-40, 42 FR 15044, Mar. 17, 1977]
14910-I3-UI

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14CFR Part 39 \Docket No. FAA-2008-+++++; Directorate Identifier 2007_NM-165-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 747 Airplanes and Model 767 Airplanes Equipped with General Electric CF6-80C2 and CF6-80A Series Engines AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department ofTransportation (DOT). 

### -AEEj "",AIM'" 

### t,~. DATE 

## 1ik 

# f",me"

require revising the airplane flight manual to advise the flightcrew to use certain

reports ofseveral in-flight engine flameouts, including multiple dual engine flameout

flight without the ability ofthe engines to be relit, and consequent forced landing ofthe ACTION: Notice ofproposed rulemaking (NPRM).

procedures during descent incertain icing conditions. Jhis proposed AD results from 

## CA.
ATE 

## 2-(

# l.-'1D'6 events and one total power loss event, in ice-crystal icing conditions. We areproposing NO'~ -111-(tJ. this AD to ensure that the flightcrew has the proper procedures to follow incertain icing

# ""'/l},A
conditions. These certain icing conditions could cause amultiple engine flameout durin
airplane. NmAlSlSIQ DA'n:s:. Wemust receive comments on this proposed AD by [insert date 45 days after

# ~K

. . 3Mof' date ofpublication inthe FEDERAL REGISTER]. SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt anew airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Boeing Model 747 airplanes and Model 767 airplanes. This proposed AD wouldf

[491O-13-U)

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2008-+++++; Directorate Identifier 2007_NM-165-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 747 Airplanes and Model 767 Airplanes Equipped with General Electric CF6-80C2 and CF6-80A Series Engines 

### -AEq AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department ofTransportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice ofproposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt anew airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Boeing Model 747 airplanes and Model 767 airplanes. This proposed AD would ATE require revising the airplanc flight manual to advise the flightcrew to use certain proccdures during descent incertain icing conditions. Jhis proposed AD results from reports ofseveral in-flight engine flameouts, including multiple dual engine flameout o

'YMOOL

events and one total power loss event, inice-crystal icing conditions. We are proposing this AD to ensure that the flightcrew has theproper procedures to follow incertain icing conditions. These certain icing conditions could cause amultiple engine flameout durin An< NO'YMOOL

flight without the ability ofthe engines tobe relit, and consequent forced landing ofthe SYM80L airplane. AWlKl DATES:. Wemust receive comments on this proposed AD by [insert date 45 days after An< date ofpublication inthe FEDERAL REGISTER].
<PAGE>



                                                             EXHIBIT 11

                             The Centris Group, Inc.

                        Computation of Earnings Per Share

The computation of per share income is based upon the weighted  average
number of common and common  equivalent  shares  outstanding  during each of the
quarters and six-month periods ended June 30 as follows:

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                             (Dollars in Thousands)


                                                                   Quarter Ended           Six Months Ended
                                                                      June 30                   June 30
                                                                      -------                   -------
                                                                1997         1996         1997         1996
                                                                ----         ----         ----         ----
<S>                                                            <C>          <C>          <C>          <C>
Net Income                                                     $3,748       $3,585       $7,408       $7,393
                                                               ======       ======       ======       ======


Weighted average shares outstanding during the period           5,960        5,851        5,961        5,837

Common stock equivalent shares                                    120          121          122          134
                                                               ------       ------       ------       ------

Common and common stock equivalent shares outstanding
for purposes of calculating income per share                    6,080        5,972        6,083        5,971

Incremental shares to reflect full dilution                        30           --           28           --
                                                               ------       ------       ------       ------ 

Total shares for purpose of calculating fully diluted
income per share                                                6,110        5,972        6,111        5,971
                                                                =====        =====        =====        =====

Net income per common and common
equivalent share                                                $0.62      $  0.60        $1.22       $ 1.24
                                                                =====      =======        =====       ======

</TABLE>

<PAGE>
#### Alexander McKenzie *v.*The Washington Life Insurance Company.

(No. 2,595.)

1. An answer under the code is not evidence, but is a pleading to be verified by the affidavit of the belief of the party that the facts therein stated are true.

2. A general denial must be considered as tantamount to a statement that the facts alleged in the petition did not occur. A statement that the party has no knowledge on the subject, and therefore denies, is not improper.

Special Term. — Action upon a policy of insurance alleged to have been assigned to plaintiff; defendant states that it has no knowledge of such assignment, and therefore denies that such assignment was made. Blaintiff files a motion to strike the allegation and denial from the answer.

*Kebler & Force*and *Washington Van Hamm,*for plaintiff.

*Bates & Scarborough,*for defendant.

Gholson, J.

An answer under our present system of practice is not evidence — it is not required for the purpose of discovery — but is a pleading, and is required to be verified by an affidavit of the belief of the defendant that the facts stated in it are true. The answer is required to contain a general or specific denial of every fact in the petition, controverted by the defendant. What shall be considered a general, and what a specific denial, is not defined in the code.

When an answer contains, as it may, a general denial without more, and an affidavit is made, that the facts stated in it are believed to be true, this must be considered as tantamount to a statement that the facts alleged in the petition did not occur; and this is a negative fact. But it may be that the defendant has no knowledge and no information *224on which he can found a belief, and is he then bound to admit the truth of what is alleged? I think not; and, in such a case, it seems to me the only course is to state, specifically, that he has no knowledge on the subject, and, therefore, denies. His affidavit, then, is as to the fact of his want of knowledge or information on the subject, and this justifies him in interposing a denial. If this were not so it would place a defendant, called upon to respond to a matter of which he never before heard, in an awkward predicament. I have had occasion to reflect on this subject several times, since the adoption of the code, and have always arrived at this conclusion; and such, I think, is now the'usual practice. It seems to follow from the very necessity of the case.

For these reasons, the motion to strike out the portion of the answer referred to will be overruled.

Motion overruled.
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:24864 Filed:08/09/23 Entered:08/11/23 15:02:06 Desc: Main

Document Page 1 of 1
§ 135.335 Approval of aircraft simulators and other training devices. ( a ) Training courses using aircraft simulators and other training devices may be included in the certificate holder's training program if approved by the Administrator.
( b ) Each aircraft simulator and other training device that is used in a training course or in checks required under this subpart must meet the following requirements: ( 1 ) It must be specifically approved for— ( i ) The certificate holder; and
( ii ) The particular maneuver, procedure, or crewmember function involved.
( 2 ) It must maintain the performance, functional, and other character- istics that are required for approval.
( 3 ) Additionally, for aircraft simulators, it must be— ( i ) Approved for the type aircraft and, if applicable, the particular variation within type for which the training or check is being conducted; and
( ii ) Modified to conform with any modification to the aircraft being simulated that changes the performance, functional, or other characteristics required for approval.
( c ) A particular aircraft simulator or other training device may be used by more than one certificate holder.
( d ) In granting initial and final approval of training programs or revisions to them, the Administrator considers the training devices, methods and procedures listed in the certificate holder's curriculum under § 135.327.
[Doc. No. 16907, 43 FR 46783, Oct. 10, 1978, as amended by Amdt. 135-1, 44 FR 26738, May 7, 1979]
About 2D Code QR Code Features QR Code Standardization QR Code Introduction

z Symbol version
Version 1 to 10
Version 11 to 20
Version 21 to 30
Version 31 to 40
Data bit

z Module Size

z Code Area Micro QR Code

Manufacturing1 | Manufacturing2

Logistics1 | Logistics2

Sales1 | Sales2
Other

QR Code FAQ QR Code Patent QR Code Scanners

Inquiry QR Code Patent FAQ

Q Is there a fee for using QR Code?

A No. The license to the use of the QR Code stipulated by JIS (Japanese Industrial Standards) and the ISO are not necessary. The specification for QR Code has been made available for use by any person or organization. (Obtaining QR Code Specification)

The word “QR Code” is registered trademark of DENSO WAVE INCORPORATED in the following countries,

Japan, United States of America, Australia and Europe.

To use the word “ QR Code” in your publications or web site, etc, please indicate a sentence QR Code is registered trademark of DENSO WAVE INCORPORATED.

This registered trademark applies only for the word “QR Code”, and not for the QR Code pattern (image).

Q Is the trademark comment necessary in case using QR Code in business card?

A No. The trademark comment is not necessary in case using only QR Code image.

Q Where the trademark comment should be indicated? A Anywhere in the media. (e.g)Book/Leaflet – The trademark comment area in the same page as the word ”QR Code” would be the best. If it is difficult, put the comment in separate page or the last page.

Poster/Ticket – The trademark comment in anywhere does not effect for the design is acceptable. For web site, please indicate the trademark comment anywhere in your web site.

Q Is it a obligation to indicate the comment of registered trademark? A To avoid confusion, etc, we request to use the word “QR Code” correctly as registered trademark.

Page Top Index QR Code Scanners FAQ

Copyright(C) 2000

- 2010 DENSO WAVE INCORPORATED All right reserved. 

## Page 1 of 1 FAQ

9/24/2010 http://www.qrcode.com /faqpatent-e.html
#### HARLOW PUB. CORPORATION v. SMITH.

No. 31664.

Oct. 7, 1947.

*185 P. 2d 207.*

Paul D. Busby, of Lawton, for plaintiff in error.

Buck Smith, of Antlers, for defendant in error.

PER CURIAM.

On the 8th day of November, 1943, plaintiff in error filed its petition in error with case-made attached, and on July 10, 1944, filed brief. The defendant in error has failed to *249file any brief and has offered no excuse for such failure. As held by this court in Durham v. Brown, 164 Okla. 139, 24 P. 2d 295, in such case it is not the duty of this court to search for some theory upon which to sustain the judgment of the trial court, but where the authorities reasonably support the allegations of the petition in error, this court may in its discretion reverse and remand the cause, with directions.

The authorities cited by the plaintiff in error reasonably sustain the allegations of error. The cause is reversed and remanded, with directions to the trial court to vacate its judgment in favor of defendant in error.

HURST, C.J., DAVISON, V.C.J., and BAYLESS, WELCH, GIBSON, and LUTTRELL, JJ., concur.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

Transmittal of Record to the Court of Appeals

DATE: August 31, 2018 

BK Case: 17-3283 LTS (PROMESA) 

Prior USCA Case #: N/A

 

APPEAL FEE PAID: YES _ NO X 

 

CASE CAPTION: In Re: Commonwealth of Puerto Rico

 

IN FORMA PAUPERIS: YES NO X 

MOTIONS PENDING: YES NO X _ 

 

NOTICE OF APPEAL FILED BY AAA PORTFOLIO BOND FUND INC, Puerto Rico AAA 

Portfolio Bond Fund II, Inc, Puerto Rico AAA Portfolio Target Maturity Fund, Inc., Puerto Rico 

Fixed Income Fund II, Inc., Puerto Rico Fixed Income Fund III, Inc., Puerto Rico Fixed Income Fund 

IV, Inc., Puerto Rico Fixed Income Fund V, Inc., Puerto Rico Fixed Income Fund VI, Inc., Puerto 

Rico Fixed Income Fund, Inc., Puerto Rico GNMA & U.S. Government Target Maturity Fund, Inc., 

Puerto Rico Investors Bond Fund I, Puerto Rico Investors Tax-Free Fund III, Inc., Puerto Rico 

Investors Tax-Free Fund IV, Inc., Puerto Rico Investors Tax-Free Fund V, Inc., Puerto Rico Investors 

Tax-Free Fund VI, Inc., Puerto Rico Investors Tax-Free Fund, Inc., Puerto Rico Investors Tax-Free 

Fund, Inc. II, Puerto Rico Mortgage-Backed &U.S Government Securities Fund, Inc., Tax-Free 

Puerto Rico Fund II, Inc., Tax-Free Puerto Rico Fund, Inc., Tax-Free Puerto Rico Target Maturity 

Fund, Inc., UBS IRA Select Growth & Income Puerto Rico Fund. 

 

APPEAL FROM: Order entered on 8/21/2018. 

 

SPECIAL COMMENTS: Copies of original documents 

INDEX OF DOCUMENTS INCLUDED AS THE RECORD ON APPEAL: 

DOCUMENTS: 

 VOLUMES: 

Docket Entries 3834, 3793 & 3418 I 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the enclosed documents contained herein are copies or the original pleadings as 

described above and constitute the record on appeal in the case. 

 

 FRANCES RIOS DE MORAN 

 Clerk of the Court 

 S/ Marian B. Ramirez-Rivera 

 Marian B. Ramirez-Rivera 

 Deputy Clerk 

Acknowledgment of Receipt: 

Received By: ________________ 

USCCA #: ________________ 

s/c: CM/ECF Parties, Appeals Clerk

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3844 Filed:08/31/18 Entered:08/31/18 15:37:13 Desc: Main

Document Page 1 of 1
#### § 17.45 Conforming amendments.

The FAA shall amend pertinent provisions of the AMS, standard contract forms and clauses, and any guidance to contracting officials, so as to conform to the provisions of this part.
181029 ORD GRANTING MOT FOR EXT OF DEADLINES VERSION OCTOBER 29, 2018 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO 

In re: 

THE FINANCIAL OVERSIGHT AND 

MANAGEMENT BOARD FOR PUERTO RICO, 

as representative of

THE COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO, et al., 

Debtors.

1

PROMESA 

Title III 

No. 17 BK 3283-LTS 

(Jointly Administered) 

ORDER GRANTING THIRD URGENT MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF DEADLINES

Upon the Third Urgent Motion for Extension of Deadlines (the “Extension Motion”);

2 and 

the Court having found it has subject matter jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to PROMESA 

section 306; and it appearing that venue in this district is proper pursuant to PROMESA section 

307; and the Court having found that the relief requested in the Extension Motion is in the best 

interests of the Debtor and Movant; and the Court having found that the Debtor provided adequate 

and appropriate notice of the Extension Motion under the circumstances and that no other or further 

 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). 2 Capitalized terms used but not otherwise defined herein have the meanings given to them in 

the Extension Motion. 

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:4112 Filed:10/29/18 Entered:10/29/18 12:04:28 Desc: Main

Document Page 1 of 2
181029 ORD GRANTING MOT FOR EXT OF DEADLINES VERSION OCTOBER 29, 2018 2

notice is required; and the Court having reviewed the Extension Motion; and the Court having 

determined that the factual bases set forth in the Extension Motion establish just cause for the relief 

granted herein; and after due deliberation and sufficient cause appearing therefor, it is HEREBY 

ORDERED THAT: 

1. The Extension Motion is granted as set forth herein. 

2. The deadline to file oppositions to the Motion [ECF No. 3958], or to otherwise respond,

shall be extended to November 5, 2018.

3. The deadline for Movant to file a reply to any oppositions shall be extended to 

November 12, 2018. 

SO ORDERED

Dated: October 29, 2018

 /s/ Laura Taylor Swain

LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN

United States District Judge

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:4112 Filed:10/29/18 Entered:10/29/18 12:04:28 Desc: Main

Document Page 2 of 2
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-13-00199-CR

VICTOR MARTINEZ APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

----------

FROM THE 396TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

----------

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

----------

The trial court granted Appellant Victor Martinez’s motion for new trial after 

adjudicating him guilty of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. An order 

granting a motion for new trial restores a case to its position before the former 

trial, and there is no longer a judgment in place. See Tex. R. App. P. 21.9(b). 

Absent a judgment of conviction, we have no jurisdiction over this appeal. See 

 

1See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
2

McKown v. State, 915 S.W.2d 160, 161 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1996, no pet.) 

(holding that appellate court generally has jurisdiction to consider an appeal by a 

criminal defendant only when there has been a judgment of conviction). 

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 

43.2(f); Hicks v. State, Nos. 05-11-01341-CR, 05-11-01342-CR, 2011 WL 

6119122, *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Dec. 9, 2011, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated 

for publication) (dismissing appeal after trial court adjudicated appellant’s guilt 

but then granted new trial).

PER CURIAM

PANEL: MEIER, J.; LIVINGSTON, C.J.; and GABRIEL, J.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: August 1, 2013
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 17

- 00279

- CV

In the Interest of G.T., a Child §

§

§

§ From the 323rd District Court

of Tarrant County (323

- 103614

- 16)

December 28, 2017

Opinion by Justice Walker



### JUDGMENT

This court has considere d the record on appeal in this case and holds that

there was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of

the trial court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By

_ /s/ Sue Walker

____________________ Justic e Sue Walker