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

§ 21.191 Experimental certificates. Experimental certificates are issued for the following purposes: ( a ) *Research and development.* Testing new aircraft design concepts, new aircraft equipment, new aircraft installations, new aircraft operating techniques, or new uses for aircraft.
( b ) *Showing compliance with regulations.* Conducting flight tests and other operations to show compliance with the airworthiness regulations including flights to show compliance for issuance of type and supplemental type certificates, flights to substantiate major design changes, and flights to show compliance with the function and reliability requirements of the regulations.
( c ) *Crew training.* Training of the applicant's flight crews.
( d ) *Exhibition.* Exhibiting the aircraft's flight capabilities, performance, or unusual characteristics at air shows, motion picture, television, and similar productions, and the maintenance of exhibition flight proficiency, including (for persons exhibiting aircraft) flying to and from such air shows and productions.
( e ) *Air racing.* Participating in air races, including (for such participants) practicing for such air races and flying to and from racing events.
( f ) *Market surveys.* Use of aircraft for purposes of conducting market surveys, sales demonstrations, and customer crew training only as provided in § 21.195.
( g ) *Operating amateur-built aircraft.* Operating an aircraft the major portion of which has been fabricated and assembled by persons who undertook the construction project solely for their own education or recreation.
( h ) *Operating primary kit-built aircraft.* Operating a primary category aircraft that meets the criteria of § 21.24(a)(1) that was assembled by a person from a kit manufactured by the holder of a production certificate for that kit, without the supervision and quality control of the production certificate holder under § 21.184(a).
( i ) *Operating light-sport aircraft.* Operating a light-sport aircraft that— ( 1 ) Has not been issued a U.S. or foreign airworthiness certificate and does not meet the provisions of § 103.1 of this chapter. An experimental certificate will not be issued under this paragraph for these aircraft after January 31, 2008;
( 2 ) Has been assembled— ( i ) From an aircraft kit for which the applicant can provide the information required by § 21.193(e); and
( ii ) In accordance with manufacturer's assembly instructions that meet an applicable consensus standard; or
( 3 ) Has been previously issued a special airworthiness certificate in the light-sport category under § 21.190.
[Amdt. 21-21, 38 FR 6858, May 7, 1968, as amended by Amdt. 21-57, 49 FR 39651, Oct. 9, 1984; Amdt. 21-70, 57 FR 41369, Sept. 9, 1992; Amdt. 21-85, 69 FR 44862, July 27, 2004; Amdt. 21-85, 69 FR 53336, Sept. 1, 2004]
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 December 23, 2013

d1216

Order 

Clerk

December 23, 2013

147637

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 147637

COA: 316490

Jackson CC: 12-004533-FH

ANDREW DOUGLAS BEYERLEIN,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 3, 2013 order of 

the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that 

the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
Appellee’s Motion to Dismiss Granted; Appellant’s Motion to Abate Denied;

Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed November 17, 2020.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-20-00681-CV

JASON KOWNSLAR, Appellant

V.

METROPOLITAN TRANSIT AUTHORITY OF HARRIS COUNTY, 

TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 270th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2017-18307

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This is an attempted accelerated interlocutory appeal from an order signed 

July 3, 2020. Appellant’s notice of appeal was filed September 30, 2020. In an 

accelerated appeal, the notice of appeal must be filed within 20 days after the order

is signed. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1(b).
2

Appellant’s notice of appeal was not filed timely. A motion to extend time is 

necessarily implied when an appellant, acting in good faith, files a notice of appeal 

beyond the time allowed by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.1, but within 

the 15-day grace period provided by Rule 26.3 for filing a motion to extend time. 

See Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 617–18 (1997) (construing predecessor 

to Rule 26, former 1986 Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 41). Appellant’s notice 

of appeal was not filed within the 15-day period provided by Texas Rule of 

Appellate Procedure 26.3.

On October 6, 2020, appellee filed a motion to dismiss for want of 

jurisdiction based on the late notice of appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a). This 

court determined it was necessary for the clerk’s record to be file before ruling on 

that motion. The clerk’s record was filed on November 3, 2020. The record 

confirmed that appellant’s notice of appeal was not timely filed as stated above.

On November 3, 2020, appellant filed a motion to abate the appeal “to 

permit appellant to take the steps necessary to make the order being appealed 

final.” Because we lack jurisdiction over this appeal, we deny that motion. 

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.

PER CURIAM

Panel Consists of Justices Bourliot, Zimmerer, and Spain.
##### 



Exhibit 32
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
 (2)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.
 Date: August 11, 2005
    
    By:
    
    /s/ Richard WayneRichard WaynePresident (Principal Executive Officer)Date: August 11, 2005
    
    By:
    
    /s/ Edward F. MehmEdward F. MehmTreasurer (Principal Financial Officer)
 30
#### In the Matter of the Rehabilitation of New York Title and Mortgage Company. Louis H. Pink, Superintendent of Insurance, as Liquidator of New York Title and Mortgage Company, Appellant; Mortgage Commission of the State of New York et al., Respondents.

(Argued October 1, 1936;

decided October 20, 1938.)

*557
      *Irving H. Jurow, Jess H. Rosenberg*and *William A. Shea*for appellant.

*John J. Clarke, Maurice Finkelstein, Morris Amchanitzky*and *Benjamin J. Rabin*for Mortgage Commission of State of New York, respondent.

*Leonard Klaber*and *George M. Jaffin*for Jessie B. Conger et al., as trustees, etc., respondents.

Order affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs, Crouch, Loughran and Finch, JJ.
§ 406.111 Signing documents. ( a ) *Signature required.* The party, or the party's attorney or representative, must sign each document tendered for filing or served on each party.
( b ) *Effect of signing a document.* By signing a document, the party, or the party's attorney or representative, certifies that he or she has read the document and, based on reasonable inquiry and to the best of that individual's knowledge, information, and belief, the document is— ( 1 ) Consistent with these rules;
( 2 ) Warranted by existing law or that a good faith argument exists for extension, modification, or reversal of existing law; and
( 3 ) Not unreasonable or unduly burdensome or expensive, not made to harass any person, not made to cause unnecessary delay, not made to cause needless increase in the cost of the proceedings, or for any other improper purpose.
( c ) *Sanctions.* If an individual signs a document in violation of this section, the administrative law judge or the FAA decisionmaker must: ( 1 ) Strike the pleading signed in violation of this section;
( 2 ) Strike the request for discovery or the discovery response signed in violation of this section and preclude further discovery by the party;
( 3 ) Deny the motion or request signed in violation of this section;
( 4 ) Exclude the document signed in violation of this section from the record;
( 5 ) Dismiss the interlocutory appeal and preclude further appeal on that issue by the party who filed the appeal until an initial decision has been entered on the record; or
( 6 ) Dismiss the appeal of the administrative law judge's initial decision to the FAA decisionmaker.
#### § 389.22 Failure to make proper payment.

In accordance with 49 CFR part 7, subpart F, § 7.42, the Department will assess interest on unpaid fees on the 31st day following the day on which a notice of the amount due is first mailed to the requestor, unless the Department has granted an application for waiver or modification of the fees.
§ 27.1399 Riding light. ( a ) Each riding light required for water operation must be installed so that it can— ( 1 ) Show a white light for at least two nautical miles at night under clear atmospheric conditions; and
( 2 ) Show a maximum practicable unbroken light with the rotorcraft on the water.
( b ) Externally hung lights may be used.
[Doc. No. 5074, 29 FR 15695, Nov. 24, 1964, as amended by Amdt. 27-2, 33 FR 964, Jan. 26, 1968]
#### § 171.73 Alternative forms of reports.

On a case-by-case basis, a Regional Administrator may accept any report in a format other than the FAA form required by this part if he is satisfied that the report contains all the information required on the FAA form and can be processed by FAA as conveniently as the FAA form.

(49 U.S.C. 1348)

[Amdt. 171-5, 34 FR 15245, Sept. 30, 1969, as amended by Amdt. 171-15, 54 FR 39296, Sept. 25, 1989]
#### Jordans vs. Van Hoesen.

Where a suit is prosecuted in the names of two attorneys, by one of them *as the attorney oj loth,*a *retaining fee*is not taxable; nor can a *hill of particulars*be charged when none is demanded by the defendant; and but *one counsel fee*can be demanded, although a hearing before referees is repeatedly adjourned.

Motion for re-taxation. Ambrose L. Jordan and Allen Jordan commenced an action of *assumpsit*against the defendant, declaring *hy AUen Jordan, their attorney.*The plaintiffs are *partners,*and claimed to recover for work, labor, care, diligence, and attendance as the attorneys, counsellors, solicitors, and agents of the defendant in the prosecuting of divers suits and businesses. They attached to the declaration and served with it a *hill of particulars,*which was taxed at $17.50. The defendant had not called for such bill.' They also charged a *retaining fee*and a *counsel fee,*on hearing before the referees eight times repeated, the referees having had eight meetings, the cause having been as frequently adjourned, and a fee being charged for each adjournment; which charges were allowed by the taxing officer.

The Court

[649] decided that the action being substantially by the plaintiffs *in their own names,*a *retaining fee*was not taxable; that the *hill of particulars*not having been called for by the defendant, was not taxable; and that but *one counsel fee*ought to be allowed: and directed a re-taxation accordingly.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4335 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4335

 To require the Secretary of Transportation to establish a policy with 
    respect to family seating on air transportation, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 28, 2020

     Ms. Klobuchar (for herself, Mr. Markey, Mr. Schumer, and Ms. 
  Klobuchar)) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
   referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To require the Secretary of Transportation to establish a policy with 
    respect to family seating on air transportation, and for other 
                               purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Fly Together Act''.

SEC. 2. POLICY ON FAMILIES FLYING WITH YOUNG CHILDREN.

    (a) In General.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Transportation shall establish 
a policy directing all air carriers providing scheduled passenger 
interstate or intrastate air transportation to establish policies that 
enable a child, who is age 13 or under on the date an applicable flight 
is scheduled to occur, to be seated in a seat adjacent to the seat of 
an accompanying family member over the age of 13, to the maximum extent 
practicable and at no additional cost, except when assignment to an 
adjacent seat would--
            (1) require an upgrade to--
                    (A) another cabin class;
                    (B) a seat with extra legroom; or
                    (C) seat pitch for which additional payment is 
                normally required; or
            (2) violate safety guidelines.
    (b) Statutory Construction.--Notwithstanding the requirement in 
subsection (a), nothing in this section may be construed to allow the 
Secretary to impose a significant change in the overall seating or 
boarding policy of an air carrier providing scheduled passenger 
interstate or intrastate air transportation that has an open or 
flexible seating policy in place that generally allows adjacent family 
seating as described in subsection (a).
    (c) Definition of Air Carrier.--In this section, the term ``air 
carrier'' has the meaning given the term in section 40102(a) of title 
49, United States Code.
                                 <all>
```
§ 27.1185 Flammable fluids. ( a ) Each fuel tank must be isolated from the engines by a firewall or shroud.
( b ) Each tank or reservoir, other than a fuel tank, that is part of a system containing flammable fluids or gases must be isolated from the engine by a firewall or shroud, unless the design of the system, the materials used in the tank and its supports, the shutoff means, and the connections, lines and controls provide a degree of safety equal to that which would exist if the tank or reservoir were isolated from the engines.
( c ) There must be at least one-half inch of clear airspace between each tank and each firewall or shroud isolating that tank, unless equivalent means are used to prevent heat transfer from each engine compartment to the flammable fluid.
( d ) Absorbent materials close to flammable fluid system components that might leak must be covered or treated to prevent the absorption of hazardous quantities of fluids.
[Doc. No. 5074, 29 FR 15695, Nov. 24, 1964, as amended by Amdt. 27-2, 33 FR 964, Jan. 26, 1968; Amdt. 27-11, 41 FR 55470, Dec. 20, 1976; Amdt. 27-37, 64 FR 45095, Aug. 18, 1999]
#### MAYFIELD v. SMOTHERS.

(Decided April 28, 1915.)

Appeal from Fayette Circuit Court.

Heard before Hon. Bernard Harwood.

Ray & Cooner, for appellant. McNeil & Monroe, for appellee.

Per Curiam.

Motion to reinstate this cause is denied, it having been previously dismissed for failure of appellant to file brief. See 13 Ala. App. 686, 68 South. 1022.
BILLS OF EXCEPTIONS.

[Hamilton Circuit Court,

1898.]

Cox, Smith and Swing, JJ.

#### JANDER v. JANDER.

Jurisdiction over Bill of Exceptions Lost by Delay in Presenting.

A trial judge has no jurisdiction to consider or sign a bill of exceptions presented on the forty-sixth day after the overruling of a motion *lor a*new trial.

Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Hamilton county.

*Gustav R.*Werner, for plaintiff in error.

*W. W.*Prather, contra.

Swing, J.

This case.is in this court on error. The bill of exceptions as appears from the record and original papers was not presented to the Judge until the forty-sixth day after the overruling of the motion for a new trial, and was not signed by the Judge until the fifty-first day. The bill not having been presented to the Judge until the forty-sixth day after the motion for a new trial was overruled, the Judge was without jurisdiction to consider or sign the same. It is therefore not a bill of exceptions within the meaning of the law, and can not be considered as such in this court. It will therefore be stricken from the files.

It appearing that the only errors claimed here are founded on the bill of exceptions and the bill being out of the case, there is nothing to be done except to affirm the judgment and this is accordingly done.
U. S. Department of Transportation Docket Management System 1200 New Jersey Ave, SE Washington, DC 20590
06/08 /2015

Re: Amendment to Exemption 11240 issued pursuant to Section 333 of the FAA Reform Act and Part 11 of the Federal Aviation Regulations in Regulatory Docket No. FAA

2014

- 0894

Re: Replacement of FAA

- 2014

- 0894

- 0007 and FAA

- 2014

- 0894

- 00 0 8 dated 04/22/2015 and 05/19/2015 respectively to reflect the correct docket number FAA

- 2014

- 0894 Dear Sir or Madam; Aerius Flight LLC, was issued an Exemption numbered 11240 (hereinafter the Exemption) for the purpose of commercial aerial survey and photography operations. Aerius Flight LLC, herby requests an amendment to the Exemption to allow an additional type of unmanned aircraft system (UAS) that fully complies with the conditions of the Exemption. Aerius Flight LLC, wishes to operate a DYS D800

- X8 and Phantom 3 Aircraft under the same terms and conditions contained in the Exemption. Attached hereto, and submitted as a confidential document, is the Flight Operations Manual (FOM) for the addit ional UASs. All operations of the additional UASs will be in full compliance with the terms of the Exemption. As this is an amendment to an existing exemption asking for only the addition of another type of unmanned aerial vehicle, Aerius Flight LLC respe ctfully submits that good cause exists so that notice does not need to be published in the Federal Register for the requested amendment. Please contact the undersigned should you have any question concerning this request for an amendment to the Exemption. Regards, Kenneth Beason, CEO Aerius Flight LLC kbeason@aeriusflight.com (248) 767

- 9092
CERTIFICATION OF
          PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of NT
Holding Corp. for the quarter ended June 30, 2004, I, Alan Lew, Chief Executive
Officer and Chief Financial Officer of NT Holding Corp. hereby certifies
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that:

     1.       Such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30,
              2004, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB
              for the period ended June 30, 2004, fairly presents, in all
              material respects, the financial condition and results of
              operations of NT Holding Corp.

Dated:  August 11, 2004

NT HOLDING CORP.


By: /s/ Alan Lew
-------------------------------------
Chief Executive Officer and
Chief Financial Officer
§ 377.5 Procedure to obtain Department interpretation. ( a ) The Department will determine upon written request by the holder of a temporary authorization or by any competitively affected air carrier or foreign air carrier, or upon its own initiative, whether the temporary authorization is a “license with reference to an activity of a continuing nature” within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. 558(c).
( b ) A written request for such a Department determination shall be filed at least 60 days before the deadline set forth in § 377.10 for a timely renewal application.
( c ) The filing of such a written request shall not affect the timeliness requirements for renewal applications that are set forth in § 377.10 or any other applicable Department rule or order.
[SPR-184, 47 FR 7212, Feb. 18, 1982, as amended by Doc. No. DOT-OST-2014-0140, 84 FR 15940, Apr. 16, 2019]
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Explosion and fire at theMacondo well (11 fatalities, 17 seriously injured, and serious environmentaldamage) : Deepwater Horizon rig, Mississippi Canyon Block #252, Gulf of Mexico,April 20, 2010**
 
Volumes: One | Two
 
SuDoc Number:Y 3.C 42/2:16/2010-10-I-OS/V.1-2
Item Number:1093-A-02 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000929796
 
January 12, 2018
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

Wniteb ~tatei1 Q[ourt of §ppeali1

for tbe jfeberaI '!Circuit

MICHAEL ROYSTER,

Petitioner-Appellant,

v.

MARIROSA LAMAS, THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY

OF THE COUNTY OF S. WILLIAMS, AND THE

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF,

Respondents-Appellees.

2013-1065

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Eastern District of Pennsylvania in case no. 11-CV-0477,

ChiefJudge J. Curtis Joyner.

ON MOTION

ORDER

The court considers whether this appeal should be

transferred to the United States Court of Appeals for the

Third Circuit.

Michael Royster appears to have appealed from a decision of the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Pennsylvania denying his petition for a writ of

Case: 13-1065 Document: 2 Page: 1 Filed: 12/03/2012
MICHAEL ROYSTER v. MARIROSA LAMAS 2

habeas corpus. This court is a court of limited jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1295. Based only upon our review of

the papers transmitted by the district court, it does not

appear that this case falls within this court's jurisdiction.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631, this court is authorized

to transfer the case to a court in which the appeal could

have been brought at the time it was filed or noticed. As

such, it appears transfer to the United States Court of

Appeals for the Third Circuit is appropriate.

Accordingly,

IT Is ORDERED THAT:

Absent objection received within 21 days of the date of

filing of this order, this appeal shall be transferred to the

Third Circuit pursuant to 28 U.s.C. § 1631.

FOR THE COURT

/s/ Jan Horbaly

Jan Horbaly

Clerk

s25

Case: 13-1065 Document: 2 Page: 2 Filed: 12/03/2012
#### In the Matter of Xenia B. Kernan, Respondent; William F. Kernan, Appellant.

(Submitted October 2, 1936;

decided October 20, 1936.)

*561
      *A. Raymond Cornwall*for appellant.

*Charles A. Phelps*for respondent.

Order affirmed, with costs, and question certified answered in the affirmative. No opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J. Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs, Crouch, Loughran and Finch. JJ.
#### WILLINGHAM v. THE STATE.

(Decided June 8, 1915.)

Appeal from Randolph Circuit Court.

Heard before Hon. J. J. Curtis.

No counsel marked for appellant. W. L. Martin, Attorney-General, for the State.

Pelham, P. J.

No error authorizing reversal appearing, the cause is affirmed. See 10 Ala. App. 116, 64 South. 544.