alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Official Journal L 250/18 S

| | ISSN 1725-2555 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 250 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 5118 September 2008 |

ISSN 1725-2555

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 250

English edition

Legislation

Volume 5118 September 2008

---

| Contents | | I   Acts adopted under the EC Treaty/Euratom Treaty whose publication is obligatory | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | REGULATIONS |
| | * | Commission Regulation (EC) No 889/2008 of 5 September 2008 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 on organic production and labelling of organic products with regard to organic production, labelling and control | 1 |

Contents

I   Acts adopted under the EC Treaty/Euratom Treaty whose publication is obligatory

page

REGULATIONS

*

Commission Regulation (EC) No 889/2008 of 5 September 2008 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 on organic production and labelling of organic products with regard to organic production, labelling and control

1

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | * | Note to the reader (see page 3 of the cover) | s3 |

*

Note to the reader (see page 3 of the cover)

s3

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of

law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

** After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2)(C); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### AUG 31 1999 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

RICHARD TALLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. No. 99-2100 FURR’S MARKET, INC., and NEW MEXICO DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Defendants-Appellees. (D.C. No. CIV-97-1320-JC) (D. N.M.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before SEYMOUR , Chief Judge, BALDOCK , and HENRY , Circuit Judges. **
Plaintiff Richard Talley appeals the district court’s dismissal of his pro se complaint alleging racial discrimination in violation of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 & 2000(a) against Defendants Furr’s Market and the New Mexico Department of Labor. We have thoroughly reviewed the parties’ briefs, the district court’s orders, and the entire record1 Plaintiff’s motion to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(a) is allowed. 2 before us. We affirm substantially for the reasons stated in the district court’s Memorandum Opinion and Order dated March 1, 1999. 1
AFFIRMED. Entered for the Court,

Bobby R. Baldock Circuit Judge
#### § 297.11 Disclaimer of jurisdiction.

The Department declines to exercise its jurisdiction over foreign indirect air carriers of property with respect to shipments that originate in a foreign country. The Department reserves the right to exercise its jurisdiction over any foreign indirect air carrier of property at any time it finds that such action is in the public interest.
§ 29.1331 Instruments using a power supply. For category A rotorcraft— ( a ) Each required flight instrument using a power supply must have— ( 1 ) Two independent sources of power;
( 2 ) A means of selecting either power source; and
( 3 ) A visual means integral with each instrument to indicate when the power adequate to sustain proper instrument performance is not being supplied. The power must be measured at or near the point where it enters the instrument. For electrical instruments, the power is considered to be adequate when the voltage is within the approved limits; and
( b ) The installation and power supply system must be such that failure of any flight instrument connected to one source, or of the energy supply from one source, or a fault in any part of the power distribution system does not interfere with the proper supply of energy from any other source.
[Doc. No. 5084, 29 FR 16150, Dec. 3, 1964, as amended by Amdt. 29-24, 49 FR 44439, Nov. 6, 1984]
EXHIBIT 99.1


                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
   Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)

The undersigned, Kevin Blackwell, Chief Executive Officer of Kahala Corp. (the
"Company"), has executed this certification in connection with the filing with
the Securities and Exchange Commission of the Company's Quarterly Report on Form
10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2002 (the "Report"). The undersigned
hereby certifies that:

     1.   The Report fully complies with the applicable requirements of Section
          13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the
19th day of August, 2002.

/s/ Kevin Blackwell
----------------------------
Chief Executive Officer
###### 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.

#### § 21.75 Application.

Each applicant for a provisional type certificate, for an amendment thereto, or for a provisional amendment to a type certificate must apply to the FAA and provide the information required by this subpart.

[Doc. No. FAA-2006-25877, Amdt. 21-92, 74 FR 53387, Oct. 16, 2009; Doc. No. FAA-2018-0119, Amdt. 21-101, 83 FR 9169, Mar. 5, 2018]
December 13, 2010

Dennis J. DeVany

Office of Aviation Analysis

US Department of Transportation

400 Seventh Street, S.W.

Washington, D.C. 20590

SkyWest Airlines Essential Air Service Proposal for Grand Island, Nebraska.

Dear Mr. DeVany:

Attached is the SkyWest Airlines proposal for continued service to Grand Island, 

Nebraska. Our proposal is to provide two direct round trips daily (12 round trips per 

week) to Chicago, Illinois (ORD) with no intermediate stops or aircraft flow from other 

cities. Service will be provided with the Bombardier Canadair Regional Jet 200 

(CRJ200) 50-seat turbojet aircraft. The proposal period is for May 1, 2011 to April 30, 

2013. 

These flights will be operated as United Express, pursuant to a code-sharing agreement 

with United Airlines, and will provide connections in Chicago to the national 

transportation system.

SkyWest welcomes the opportunity to provide reliable service if selected. 

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Michael Thompson 

Vice President – Market Development

SkyWest Airlines
SkyWest Airlines

Grand Island, NE 2011-2012

14-Dec-10

GRI

ORD

Number of round-trips per week 12

Aircraft Type - CRJ 200

Passenger Revenue

Passengers 21,000

Average Fare $ 115.00

Revenue $ 2,415,000

Block Time

Trip block time - Minutes 105

Total scheduled block time 2,184

Total completed block time 98% 2,140

RPMS

Passengers 21,000

Stage Length 543

 11,403,000

ASMs

Scheduled Departures 1,248

Competed Departures 98% 1,223

Stage length 543

Available Seats 50

 33,883,200

Revenue $ 2,415,000

Direct Operating Expenses Blk Hr $ 1,946.24 $ 4,165,576

Flight attendant Blk Hr $ 37.30 $ 79,834

RPM related RPMS $ 0.003 $ 34,209

Departure related Departures $ 412.56 $ 504,577

ASM related ASMS $ 0.011 $ 372,715

$ 5,156,912

Operating income (loss) $ (2,741,912)

5% profit margin $ 257,846

Subsidy requirement $ 2,999,758

SkyWest effective rates per unit

Per trip $ 4,216

Per passenger $ 246

SkyWest cost per block hour $ 2,409

Effective Subsidy rate per unit

Per trip $ 2,453

Per passenger $ 143

SkyWest cost per block hour $ 2,409

Load factor 34%

Average fuel cost per gallon $ 2.75
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:2805 Filed:03/26/18 Entered:03/26/18 14:24:02 Desc: Main

Document Page 1 of 5
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:2805 Filed:03/26/18 Entered:03/26/18 14:24:02 Desc: Main

Document Page 2 of 5
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:2805 Filed:03/26/18 Entered:03/26/18 14:24:02 Desc: Main

Document Page 3 of 5
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:2805 Filed:03/26/18 Entered:03/26/18 14:24:02 Desc: Main

Document Page 4 of 5
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:2805 Filed:03/26/18 Entered:03/26/18 14:24:02 Desc: Main

Document Page 5 of 5
NUMBER 13-24-00144-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

 

IN THE MATTER OF THE MARRIAGE OF PRISCILLA VACULIN NALL 

AND BRICE VINCENT MACALUSO JR.

 

ON APPEAL FROM THE 130TH DISTRICT COURT 

OF MATAGORDA COUNTY, TEXAS

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Longoria and Peña 

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Peña 

On March 5, 2024, appellant filed a notice of appeal. On March 5, 2024, the Clerk 

of the Court requested appellant to remit a $205.00 filing fee within ten days from the date 

of the notice. On March 21, 2024, the Clerk of the Court notified appellant he was 

delinquent in remitting the $205.00 filing fee. The Clerk of this Court notified appellant the 

appeal was subject to dismissal if the filing fee was not paid within ten days from the date

of the letter. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c).
2

Appellant has not paid the filing fee nor otherwise responded to the notices from 

the Clerk of the Court requiring a response or other action within the time specified; 

accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution. See id. 42.3(c).

Furthermore, appellant’s fourth amended motion for emergency relief to subpoena 

bank records is denied as moot.

L. ARON PEÑA JR. 

Justice

Delivered and filed on the 

16th day of May, 2024
### IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10

- 16

- 00329

- CV

IN THE MATTER OF A.J ., A JUVENILE

From the 272nd District Court Brazos County, Texas
Trial Court No. 418

- J

- 15

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In an order issued February 15, 2017, we ordered briefing on the question of

whether this proceeding is moot 1 because the juvenile court judge does not appear to

have adopted the referee’s “Order Modifying Disposition” signed by the referee on

August 29, 2016. 2 As explained in our earlier order, if the referee’s order was not adopted

by the juvenile court judge the next working day after it was received, it “results in release

of the child by operation of law....” T EX

. F AM

. C ODE A NN . § 54.10(d) (West 2014 ).

1 Generally, an appeal is moot when the court's action on the merits cannot affect the rights of the parties. See VE Corp. v. Ernst & Young , 860 S.W.2d 83, 84 (Tex. 1993).

2 At the end of the Order Modifying Disposition is a document entitled, “Referee’s Report” which recommends that the “foregoing proposed order be adopted as the judgment of the Court.” A parag raph adopting the “foregoing orders” is provided at the bottom of the Referee’s Report with a space for the date and the signature of the “Judge Presiding.” These spaces are blank.In the Matter of A.J., a Juvenile Page 2

The Court ordered briefing on this issue within 14 days.

The State filed a response which did not direct ly address the referenced statute but

suggested the appeal was moot for similar reasons.

The appellant has failed to file a response.

The referee’s order is a nullity if it is not timely acted upon by the juvenile court

judge. The juvenile court judge d id not act upon the referee’s order. The referee’s order

does not, and cannot, be the basis for a modification of the juvenile’s disposition order.

Because the referee’s order was not adopted by the juvenile court judge, we agree

with the State that ther e is nothing to appeal. The referee’s Order Modifying Disposition

is a nullity, and this appeal is moot. Accordingly, the Order Modifying Disposition is

vacated, and this appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction

. See Heckman v. Williamson

Cty ., 369 S.W.3d 137, 162 (Tex. 2012) ( “ If a case is or becomes moot, the court must vacate

any order or judgment previously issued and dismiss the case for want of jurisdiction. ”).

TOM GRAY Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis, and Justice Scoggins Appeal dismissed Opinion delivered and filed March 22 , 2017 [CV06]
§ 29.957 Flow between interconnected tanks. ( a ) Where tank outlets are interconnected and allow fuel to flow between them due to gravity or flight accelerations, it must be impossible for fuel to flow between tanks in quantities great enough to cause overflow from the tank vent in any sustained flight condition.
( b ) If fuel can be pumped from one tank to another in flight— ( 1 ) The design of the vents and the fuel transfer system must prevent structural damage to tanks from overfilling; and
( 2 ) There must be means to warn the crew before overflow through the vents occurs.
#### § 23.2535 Safety equipment.

Safety and survival equipment, required by the operating rules of this chapter, must be reliable, readily accessible, easily identifiable, and clearly marked to identify its method of operation.
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Consolidated Energy, Inc. (the "Registrant") on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, David Guthrie, President and Principal Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



1.

to the best of my knowledge, the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2.

to the best of my knowledge, the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Registrant and will be retained by the Registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.





Date:  March 30, 2006

/s/David Guthrie

David Guthrie

President and

Principal Executive Officer
Exhibit
10.3


 


AMENDMENT
NO. 1


TO


EMPLOYMENT
AGREEMENT


This AMENDMENT NO.
1 TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (the “Amendment”),
dated as of April 15, 2003, is by and among Elgar Holdings, Inc., a
Delaware corporation (“Holdings”),
Elgar Electronics Corporation, a California corporation and a wholly owned
subsidiary of Holdings (“EEC”),
and Joseph Budano (“Executive”).


RECITALS


WHEREAS,
Executive, Holdings and EEC are party to an Employment Agreement, dated as of
July 17, 2002 (the “Employment
Agreement”);


WHEREAS, Section 4.5
of the Employment Agreement, among other things, obligates Executive to
purchase from Holdings, and Holdings to issue and sell to Executive, 500,000
shares of the common stock of Holdings at a purchase price of $0.10 per share;


WHEREAS, by agreement
of Executive, Holdings and EEC, the sale and purchase of those shares has not
yet occurred; and


WHEREAS,
Executive, Holdings and EEC desire to amend the Employment Agreement to delete
therefrom Section 4.5 in its entirety.


AGREEMENT


NOW THEREFORE, in
consideration of the premises and the mutual agreements hereinafter set forth,
the parties hereto hereby agree as follows:


1.             Amendment of Section 4.5.  Section 4.5 of the Agreement is hereby amended,
superseded and replaced in its entirety by the following:


“4.5.       [intentionally
omitted]”


2.             Waiver. 
Each of the parties hereto expressly acknowledges and agrees that no
other party hereto was in breach of the Employment Agreement because the sale
and purchase of shares pursuant to Section 4.5 of the Employment Agreement
was not consummated prior to the date of this Amendment.


3.             Governing Law. 
This Agreement shall be interpreted, construed, governed and enforced in
accordance with the laws of the State of Delaware.


4.             Counterparts.  This Agreement may be executed in one or more
counterpart copies, each of which shall be deemed to be an original and all of
which taken together shall be deemed one and the same instrument.


5.             No
Further Amendment.  Except as amended hereby, the Employment
Agreement shall continue in full force and effect.


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Holdings and EEC have caused this Agreement to be
executed on their behalf by their duly authorized officers and Executive has
executed the same as of the day and year first above written.


ELGAR
HOLDINGS, INC.


	
  By:

  	
  /s/ Donald Glickman

  
	
   

  	
  Donald Glickman

  Chairman of the Board and Vice President

  



ELGAR
ELECTRONICS CORPORATION


	
  By:

  	
  /s/ Donald Glickman

  
	
   

  	
  Donald Glickman

  Chairman of the Board and Vice President

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  /s/ Joseph Budano

  
	
  Joseph Budano
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act, Pub. L. 94-409, that the Securities and Exchange Commission will hold the following meeting during the week of January 17, 2000.

A closed meeting will be held on Thursday, January 20, 2000 at 11:00 a.m.

Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the closed meeting. Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters may also be present.

The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4), (8), (9)(A) and (10) and 17 CFR 200.402(a)(4), (8), (9)(A) and (10), permit consideration for the scheduled matters at the closed meeting.

Commissioner Johnson, as duty officer, voted to consider the items listed for the closed meeting in a closed session.

The subject matters of the closed meeting scheduled for Thursday, January 20, 2000, will be: 

A litigation matter;

Institution and settlement of injunctive actions; and

Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings of an enforcement nature. 

At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in the scheduling of meeting items. For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed, please contact:

The office of the Secretary at (202) 942-7070.

 Dated: January 11, 2000.

 Jonathan G. Katz,

 Secretary.

 [FR Doc. 00-1124 Filed 1-12-00; 4:19 pm]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-M
Exhibit 32.1

                      CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER CERTIFICATION
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

     In connection with the Annual Report of Northern Offshore Ltd. (the
"Company") on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") on or about the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Tor Olav Troim, Chief Executive Officer and President of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     (1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

     A signed original of this written statement has been provided to the
Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the SEC or its
staff upon request.

Date: March 29, 2004


/s/ Tor Olav Troim
Chief Executive Officer

02089.0009 #474410
Dismissed and Opinion Filed January 29, 2018 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-17-01366-CV NATIONAL JUDGMENT RECO VERY CENTER, L.P. AS ASSIGNEE OF UNIFUND CCR PARTNERS, Appellant V. MICHAEL LOYA, Appellee On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC-05-10049-E



### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Wright, Justice Evans, and Justice Brown Opinion by Chief Justice Wright In its notice of appeal, appellant states it is appealing the trial court’s “August 31, 2017 denial of its Application for Wr it of Scire Facias.” By letter dated December 28, 2017, the Court questioned its jurisdiction over this appeal as the clerk’s record did not contain a signed order on the application for writ of scire facias. We instructed appellant to file, by January 9, 2018, a letter brief addressing our concern and ca utioned that failure to do so may result in dismissal of the appeal without further notice. As of today’ s date, appellant has not filed a response. Generally, this Court has jurisdiction only ove r appeals from final judgments and certain interlocutory orders as permitted by statute. See Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp. , 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). A final judgment is one that dispos es of all pending parties and claims. Id

.–2– Appellate timetables run from the date the appealable order or judgment is signed. See T EX
. R.
A PP
. P. 26.1. The record before this Court doe s not contain a final judgment or other appealable order. Without a judgment or other appe alable order, there is nothi ng for this Court to review. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 42.3(a).

171366F.P05 /Carolyn Wright/ CAROLYN WRIGHT CHIEF JUSTICE–3– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT

NATIONAL JUDGMENT RECOVERY CENTER, L.P. AS ASSIGNEE OF UNIFUND CCR PARTNERS, Appellant
No. 05-17-01366-CV V. MICHAEL LOYA, Appellee On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC-05-10049-E. Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Wright. Justices Evans and Brown participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opi nion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED

. It is ORDERED that appellee MICHAEL LOYA recove r his costs of this appeal from appellant NATIONAL JUDGMENT RECOVERY CENTER, L.P. AS ASSIGNEE OF UNIFUND CCR PARTNERS.
Judgment entered January 29, 2018.
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER



In connection with the Annual Report of River Holding Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Periodic Report), I, Charles A. French, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, to my knowledge, that:



| | 1. | The Periodic Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



/s/ Charles A. FrenchCharles A. French President and Chief Executive Officer March 16, 2004