alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### FALASZ v CITY OF BOCA RATON POLICE & FIREFIGHTERS’ RETIREMENT SYSTEM

Case No. AP 88-11618 AY

Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County

September 16, 1991

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

Fred H. Gelston, Esquire, Damsel & Gelston, P.A., for petitioner.

Robert A. Sugarman, Esquire, Sugarman & Susskind, P.A., for respondent.

Before RODGERS, RAPP, OFTEDAL, JJ.

*9OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM

Susan Falasz was a police officer for the City of Boca Raton. Petitioner contended that while investigating a burglary on a boat in April 1984 she suffered an injury to her right knee which has left her unable to perform the duties of a police officer. Ms. Falasz was also injured in an off-duty car accident in April 1983. Believing her later injury may possibly have resulted from the car accident, the Boca Raton Police and Firefighters’ Pension Board of Trustees (the Board) denied Falasz’ request for a service connected disability pension.

> Where a party is entitled as a matter of right to seek review in the circuit court from administrative action, the circuit court must determine whether procedural due process is accorded, whether the essential requirements of the law have been observed, and whether the administrative findings and judgment are supported by competent substantial evidence. *City of Deerfield Beach v Vaillant,*419 So.2d 624, 626 (Fla. 1982). *See also Education Development Center, Inc. v City of West Palm Beach Zoning Board of Appeals,*541 So.2d 106 (Fla. 1989).

Petitioner concedes the Board observed the essential requirements of the law and we find procedural due process was accorded. *See Munch v Davis,*143 Fla. 236, 196 So. 491 (Fla. 1940). Upon review and careful consideration of the appendix and “supplemental record on appeal”, we find Ms. Falasz proved her injury was service-incurred, total, and permanent, and the Board’s denial of the requested pension was not supported by competent substantial evidence.

There being no procedural error we do not remand for a new hearing. *See Lake Ida Protection Society, Inc. v Board of County Commissioners of Putnam County,*574 So.2d 1205 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991); *Board of County Commissioners of Monroe County v Key Largo Associates, Ltd.,*569 So.2d 517 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); *Polk v School Board of Polk County,*373 So.2d 960, 962 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979).

In accordance with the foregoing, we quash the decision of the Pension Board of Trustees and remand with directions to award Ms. Falasz the requested service-connected disability pension.

Further, Respondent’s request for attorney’s fees and costs is denied.

DECISION QUASHED AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS.

RODGERS, RAPP and OFTEDAL, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                          60,161
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   10,904
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (1,310)
<INVENTORY>                                      5,750
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                76,953
<PP&E>                                          23,860
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (4,278)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 154,765
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           11,832
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           264
<OTHER-SE>                                     142,669
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   154,765
<SALES>                                         12,702
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                12,702
<CGS>                                            8,950
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    8,950
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                26,235
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (20,308)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (20,308)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.97)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.97)


</TABLE>
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 Quarterly Report of Allstates WorldCargo, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending December 31, 2003 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Sam
DiGiralomo, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. ss. 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)
           of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

           (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
           material respects, the consolidated financial condition of the
           company as of the dates presented and the consolidated result of
           operations of the Company for the periods presented.


Dated: February 13, 2004


/s/ Sam DiGiralomo
------------------------
Sam DiGiralomo
President and Chief Executive Officer



This certification has been furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
Exhibit 23.2

LONQUIST & CO. LLC

May 10, 2011

Contango Oil & Gas Company

3700
Buffalo Speedway, Suite 960

Houston, Texas 77098



| | Re: | Contango Oil & Gas Company, Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------

Gentlemen:

The firm of Lonquist & Co. LLC consents to the use of its
name and to the use of its projections for Contango Oil & Gas Companys Proved Reserves and Future Net Revenue in Contangos Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

Lonquist & Co. LLC has no interests in Contango Oil & Gas Company or in any affiliated companies or subsidiaries and is
not to receive any such interest as payment for such reports and has no director, officer, or employee otherwise connected with Contango Oil & Gas Company. Contango Oil & Gas Company does not employ us on a contingent basis.



|                         
|-------------------------
|Yours very truly,        
|                         
|LONQUIST & CO. LLC       
|                         
|/s/ Richard R. Lonquist  
|RICHARD R. LONQUIST, P.E.
1 

### Kelly, Shaheerah

From: Kelly, Shaheerah

Sent: Tuesday, December 29, 2015 9:54 AM

To: Ann V Howard

Cc: Mary-Ellen Walsh; Kelly, Shaheerah Subject: RE: Utah project and consultation with the AZSHPO

Ann,

Thank you for your response and I appreciate your feedback on the letter.

Have a wonderful day.

************************************ Shaheerah Kelly
Permits Office, Air Division (AIR-3)

U.S. Environmental Protec tion Agency, Region 9
San Francisco, CA 94105

Phone: 415-947-4156

Fax: 415-947-3579

Email: kelly.shaheerah@epa.gov

From: Ann V Howard [mailto:ahoward@azstateparks.gov]

Sent: Tuesday, December 29, 2015 8:59 AM

To: Kelly, Shaheerah <Kelly.Shaheerah@epa.gov>

Cc: Mary

‐ Ellen Walsh <mwalsh@azstateparks.gov>
Subject: Utah project and consultation with the AZSHPO



### Dear Shaheerah, thank you for e-mailing us regarding the McElmo Creek Unit Oil Production Facility in San Juan County, Utah. However, you do not need to consul t with the Arizona SHPO on undertakings located in states other than Arizona. Our office does not have any authority in other states; the SHPO of the respective state is the only SHPO with whom you need to consult if the u ndertaking is occurring in that state only. (If an undertaking is situated in more than one state, then you would need to consult with the SHPOs of all affected states.)

I would also like to point out that the stat ement in your cover/transmittal letter that " EPA will consider the lack of reply to

be Arizona State Historic Pre s ervation Office agreement with the determination” 

### does not follow the Section 106 regulations. 800.5(2)(1) states that a SHPO/THPO's lack of response to an agency's finding of effect is to be considered a lack of response, not ag reement with the finding of effect.

Just FYI! Thank you for your understanding, Ann

_______

Ann V. Howard Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer / Archaeology

Phone: (602) 542-7138

Email: ahoward@azstateparks.gov

Web: http://AZStateParks.com2
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-6863

BERNARD KING, a/k/a Shaborn,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District

Judge. (CR-94-163-14)

Submitted: July 15, 2004 Decided: July 23, 2004

Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Bernard King, Appellant Pro Se. Laura P. Tayman, Assistant United

States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Bernard King seeks to appeal the district court’s orders

in his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) proceeding denying his motions filed

under Rule 60(b) and Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice

or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue

absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional

right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this

standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that

his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive

procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or

wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003);

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d

676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the

record and conclude that King has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the

appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### Charles W. Smith, Respondent, *v.*Harry Salop, Appellant.

(Argued June 3, 1936;

decided July 8, 1936.)

*Daniel Mungall*for appellant.

*Emanuel Richard Jacoby*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs, Crouch, Loughran and Finch, JJ.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-60738 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus DLOYS GIVHAN, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 3:96-CV-7-S

- - - - - - - - - - April 9,1998 Before JOLLY, JONES, and DUHÉ, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Federal prisoner Dloys Givhan (# 09244-042) appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Givhan argues that his 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) conviction must be reversed in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Bailey v. United States , 516 U.S. 137 (1995), because the jury was erroneously instructed as to the “use” prong of § 924(c)(1).No. 97-60738 -2- We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. The district court instructed the jury as to the “carrying” prong

only. The court’s instructions regarding the use of a firearm with respect to the “in relation to” prong are unaffected by Bailey
. United States v. Tolliver , 116 F.3d 120, 125 (5th Cir.) (“ Bailey did not address the ‘in relation to’ prong of § 924(c)(1). The pre- Bailey interpretation of the ‘in relation to’ language therefore remains unaffected.”), cert. denied , 118 S. Ct. 324 (1997). The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Small Business Administration

Notice is hereby given that TD Javelin Capital Fund, LP (“TD Javelin”), 2850 Cahaba Road, Suite 240, Birmingham, Alabama 35223, a Federal Licensee under the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, as amended (“the Act”), TD Javelin Capital Fund II, LP (“TD Javelin II”), 2850 Cahaba Road, Suite 240, Birmingham, Alabama 35223, a Federal Licensee under the Act, and TD Lighthouse Capital Fund, LP (“TD Lighthouse”, and together with TD Javelin and TD Javelin II, the “Funds”), 303 Detroit Street, Suite 301, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48104, an applicant for a Federal license under the Act, in connection with the financing of a small concern, are seeking an exemption under section 312 of the Act and section 107.730, Financings which Constitute Conflicts of Interest of the Small Business Administration (“SBA”) rules and regulations (13 CFR 107.730 (2000)). The Funds propose to provide equity financing to t-Breeders, Inc. (“t-Breeders”), One Innovation Drive, Worcester, Massachusetts 01605. The financing is contemplated for product development and working capital. 

The financing is brought within the purview of Sec. 107.730(a)(1) of the Regulations because TD Javelin, an Associate of the Funds, currently owns greater than 10 percent of t-Breeders and therefore t-Breeders is considered an Associate of each of the Funds as defined in Sec. 107.50 of the regulations. 

Notice is hereby given that any interested person may submit written comments on the transaction to the Associate Administrator for Investment, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 Third Street, SW, Washington, DC 20416. 

Dated: April 26, 2000. 

Don A. Christensen, 

Associate Administrator for Investment. 

[FR Doc. 00-11496 Filed 5-8-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
§ 33.5 Instruction manual for installing and operating the engine. Each applicant must prepare and make available to the Administrator prior to the issuance of the type certificate, and to the owner at the time of delivery of the engine, approved instructions for installing and operating the engine. The instructions must include at least the following: ( a ) *Installation instructions.* ( 1 ) The location of engine mounting attachments, the method of attaching the engine to the aircraft, and the maximum allowable load for the mounting attachments and related structure.
( 2 ) The location and description of engine connections to be attached to accessories, pipes, wires, cables, ducts, and cowling.
( 3 ) An outline drawing of the engine including overall dimensions.
( 4 ) A definition of the physical and functional interfaces with the aircraft and aircraft equipment, including the propeller when applicable.
( 5 ) Where an engine system relies on components that are not part of the engine type design, the interface conditions and reliability requirements for those components upon which engine type certification is based must be specified in the engine installation instructions directly or by reference to appropriate documentation.
( 6 ) A list of the instruments necessary for control of the engine, including the overall limits of accuracy and transient response required of such instruments for control of the operation of the engine, must also be stated so that the suitability of the instruments as installed may be assessed.
( b ) *Operation instructions.* ( 1 ) The operating limitations established by the Administrator.
( 2 ) The power or thrust ratings and procedures for correcting for nonstandard atmosphere.
( 3 ) The recommended procedures, under normal and extreme ambient conditions for— ( i ) Starting;
( ii ) Operating on the ground; and
( iii ) Operating during flight.
( 4 ) For rotorcraft engines having one or more OEI ratings, applicants must provide data on engine performance characteristics and variability to enable the aircraft manufacturer to establish aircraft power assurance procedures.
( 5 ) A description of the primary and all alternate modes, and any back-up system, together with any associated limitations, of the engine control system and its interface with the aircraft systems, including the propeller when applicable.
( c ) *Safety analysis assumptions.* The assumptions of the safety analysis as described in § 33.75(d) with respect to the reliability of safety devices, instrumentation, early warning devices, maintenance checks, and similar equipment or procedures that are outside the control of the engine manufacturer.
[Amdt. 33-6, 39 FR 35463, Oct. 1, 1974, as amended by Amdt. 33-9, 45 FR 60181, Sept. 11, 1980; Amdt. 33-24, 47 FR 50867, Sept. 4, 2007; Amdt. 33-25, 73 FR 48123, Aug. 18, 2008; Amdt. 33-26, 73 FR 48284, Aug. 19, 2008]
Cite as 2016 Ark. 366



## SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS

No. CR

- 16

- 857 BILLY DAVIS JR. APPELLANT

V.

STATE OF ARKANSAS APPELLEE Opinion Delivered: October 27, 2016

MOTION FOR BELATED A PPEAL AND PETITION FOR WRI T OF CERTIORARI

MOTION FOR BELATED A PPEAL GRANTED ; PETITION FO R WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO COMPLETE AND LODGE THE RECORD WITHIN NINETY DAYS GRANTED

PER CURIAMOn March 1, 2016, a jury found Billy Davis Jr. guilty of aggravated robbery, firstdegree battery, and theft of property. A sentencing order was entered on March 2, 2016. There is nothing in the record to reflect that trial counsel was relieved. Counsel denies that appellant timely informed him that he desired to appeal; instead, Davis belatedly filed a pro se notice of appeal and affidavit of indigen cy on May 2, 2016. Now before us is counsel’s motion for belated appeal in which he also seeks a writ of certiorari to bring up the record and proceed with the appeal. Arkansas Rule of Appellate Procedure

– Criminal 16 (2015) provides in pertinent part that trial counsel, whether retained or court appointed, shall continue to represent a convicted defendant throughout any appeal, unless permitted by the trial court or theCite as 2016 Ark. 366

appellate court to withdraw in the interest of justice or for other sufficient cause. We have held, however, that a defendant may waive his right to appeal by his failure to inform counsel of his desire to appeal within the thirty-day period allowed for filing a notice of appeal under Arkansas Rule of Appellate Procedure

– Criminal 2(a)(4). Sanders v. State , 330 Ark. 851, 956 S.W.2d 868 (1997) (per curiam); Jones v. State , 294 Ark. 659, 748 S.W.2d 117 (1988) (per curiam). It is clear that, regardless of whether Davis timely informed his counsel, he does, in fact, desire to appeal. He is entitled to a direct appeal of his conviction as a matter of right. Evans v. State , 356 Ark. 366, 151 S.W.3d 314 (2004) (per curiam) (citing Douglas v. California , 372 U.S. 353 (1963)). We grant the motion for belated appeal. Although Davis’s notice of appeal indicates that the complete transcript of the proceedings was ordered, only the partial record has been tendered to this court. Our clerk is directed to lodge the partial record. We issue the writ of certiorari to complete the record and have the entire record lodged within ninety days of this order. When the supplemental record is received, we direct the clerk to set an appropriate briefing schedule for the matter. Motion for belated appeal granted; writ of certiorari to complete and lodge the record within ninety days granted.
#### § 33.74 Continued rotation.

If any of the engine main rotating systems continue to rotate after the engine is shutdown for any reason while in flight, and if means to prevent that continued rotation are not provided, then any continued rotation during the maximum period of flight, and in the flight conditions expected to occur with that engine inoperative, may not result in any condition described in § 33.75(g)(2)(i) through (vi) of this part.

[Amdt. 33-24, 72 FR 50867, Sept. 4, 2007]
#### Margaret J. Roche, Respondent, *v.*Edwin L. Thurber et al., Defendants, and Samuel Singer et al., Appellants.

(Submitted October 7, 1936;

decided October 23, 1936.)

*583
      *F. R. Serri*for appellants.

*Raymond P. McNulty*and *Gilbert F. Regan*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs, Crouch, Loughb an and Finch, JJ.
February 5, 2013

Mr. Robert Freitas

Director of Maintenance

5 Concord Farms

555 Virginia Road

Concord, MA 01742

Dear Mr. Freitas:

This is in response to your November 28 , 2012 letter sent to the public docket (No. FAA

20 12

- 1271) petitioning the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of AirDialog

LLC, dba Linear Air, for an exemption from § 4 3

. 3 ( g ) of Title 14, Code of Federal

Regulations (14 CFR) . This petition, if granted, would allow AirDialog LLC pilots , who h ave

been properly trained to perform preventive maintenance, in the form of updating Air Traffic

Control ( ATC ) navigational software databases on its aircraft used in opera tions under 14

CFR part 135.

On November 29, 2012, the FAA published a f inal rule , Pilot Loading of Aeronautical

Database Updates (77 FR 71089 ). The rule became effective January 28, 2013. A copy of this

rule change is enclosed for your information. The rule describes equipment and conditions in

which aeronautical databases may be up dated by pilots as a non

- maintenance function.

As the relief you seek is now provided in revised § 43.3(g) , we will take no further action on

your petition.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brenda D. Courtney

Manager, Aircraft and Airport Rules Division

Enclosure
§ 29.1433 Vacuum systems. ( a ) There must be means, in addition to the normal pressure relief, to automatically relieve the pressure in the discharge lines from the vacuum air pump when the delivery temperature of the air becomes unsafe.
( b ) Each vacuum air system line and fitting on the discharge side of the pump that might contain flammable vapors or fluids must meet the requirements of § 29.1183 if they are in a designated fire zone.
( c ) Other vacuum air system components in designated fire zones must be at least fire resistant.
#### § 111.210 Format for reporting information.

Each reporting entity must report to the PRD all records required by this subpart for each individual the reporting entity employed as a pilot in a form and manner prescribed by the Administrator.