alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-21-00241-CV

__________________

IN THE INTEREST OF K.N.H.

__________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 356th District Court

Hardin County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 53892

__________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Jessie James Hayes, Appellant, filed a notice of appeal from a final judgment 

signed on July 20, 2021. Appellant paid the filing fee for the appeal. On November 

29, 2021, we notified the parties that the clerk’s record had not been filed due to 

Appellant’s failure to pay, or to arrange to pay, the District Clerk’s fee for preparing 

the clerk’s record and warned that the appeal would be dismissed for want of 

prosecution unless Appellant established that he had arranged to pay the fee or that 

he needed additional time to do so. See Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(b). Neither of the parties 

filed a response to our notice.
2

In the absence of a satisfactory explanation justifying Appellant’s failure to 

arrange to pay for a clerk’s record to support his appeal, we dismiss the appeal for 

want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(b), 42.3, 43.2(f).

APPEAL DISMISSED.

PER CURIAM

Submitted on January 12, 2022

Opinion Delivered January 13, 2022

Before Golemon, C.J., Horton and Johnson, JJ.
§ 250.2b Carriers to request volunteers for denied boarding. ( a ) In the event of an oversold flight, every carrier shall request volunteers for denied boarding before using any other boarding priority. A “volunteer” is a person who responds to the carrier's request for volunteers and who willingly accepts the carriers' offer of compensation, in any amount, in exchange for relinquishing the confirmed reserved space. Any other passenger denied boarding is considered for purposes of this part to have been denied boarding involuntarily, even if that passenger accepts the denied boarding compensation.
( b ) Every carrier shall advise each passenger solicited to volunteer for denied boarding, no later than the time the carrier solicits that passenger to volunteer, whether he or she is in danger of being involuntarily denied boarding and, if so, the compensation the carrier is obligated to pay if the passenger is involuntarily denied boarding. If an insufficient number of volunteers come forward, the carrier may deny boarding to other passengers in accordance with its boarding priority rules.
( c ) If a carrier offers free or reduced rate air transportation as compensation to volunteers, the carrier must disclose all material restrictions, including but not limited to administrative fees, advance purchase or capacity restrictions, and blackout dates applicable to the offer before the passenger decides whether to give up his or her confirmed reserved space on the flight in exchange for the free or reduced rate transportation. If the free or reduced rate air transportation is offered orally to potential volunteers, the carrier shall also orally provide a brief description of the material restrictions on that transportation at the same time that the offer is made.
( d ) Carriers must proactively offer to pay compensation to a passenger who is voluntarily or involuntarily denied boarding on an oversold flight, rather than waiting until the passenger requests the compensation.
[ER-1337, 48 FR 29680, June 28, 1983, as amended at 68 FR 52836, Sept. 8, 2003; Doc. No. OST-01-9325, 73 FR 21034, Apr. 18, 2008; Doc. No. DOT-OST-2010-0140, 76 FR 23161, Apr. 25, 2011; Docket No. DOT-OST-2014-0056, 81 FR 76827, Nov. 3, 2016; Doc. No. DOT-OST-2020-0251, 86 FR 2538, Jan. 13, 2021]
#### § 377.11 Processing of defective renewal applications.

When the Department determines that a renewal application does not comply with the requirements of this part, or that it does not relate to a license with reference to an activity of a continuing nature, it will so notify the applicant. The applicant may amend his application to cure the deficiency as a matter of right at any time prior to the date when the application was due pursuant to § 377.10(c).

[SPR-84, 40 FR 24998, June 12, 1975, as amended by Doc. No. DOT-OST-2014-0140, 84 FR 15940, Apr. 16, 2019]
##### 



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 SpectraSite, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
Stephen H. Clark, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to and for the purposes of 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.

|                |  |                        
|--------------- |  | -----------------------
|August 11, 2003 |  | /s/ STEPHEN H. CLARK   
|                |  |                        
|                |  | Stephen H. Clark       
|                |  | Chief Executive Officer
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.                  

###### Department of Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration

          - [TA-W-37,011 and NAFTA-3527]

                    By letter of January 31, 2000, the petitioners request administrative reconsideration of the Department of Labor's Notice of Negative Determinations Regarding Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance (TAA) and North American Free Trade Agreement-Transitional Adjustment Assistance (NAFTA-TAA) application to workers and former workers of the subject firm. The denial notices were signed on January 14, 2000, and published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on February 4, 2000 (65 FR 5690) and (65 FR 5691), respectively.                

The petitioners present evidence that some of the production performed by workers at the subject firm has been shifted to Canada and is returning to the United States.

## Conclusion

                    After careful review of the application, I conclude that the claim is of sufficient weight to justify reconsideration of the Department of                           ( print page 25948)                        Labor's prior decision. The application is, therefore, granted.                

Signed at Washington, D.C. this 27th day of April 2000.

Grant D. Beale,

Program Manager, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. 00-11109  Filed 5-3-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-03-M
#### Daniel Magaliff, Respondent, *v.*New York Life Insurance Company, Appellant.

(Submitted September 28, 1936;

decided October 13, 1936.)

*522
      *Kenneth deF. Carpenter*and *Louis H. Cooke*for appellant.

*Joseph Garrow*and *Elias Garrow*for respondent.

Order affirmed, with costs, and questions certified answered in the negative. No opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs, Crouch, Loughran and Finch, JJ.
EXHIBIT A 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE 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.2

PROMESA 

Title III 

No. 17 BK 3283-LTS 

(Jointly Administered) 

CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT 

I, , state that: 

1. My address is _____________________________________________________. 

2. My present employer is _____________________________________________. 

3. My present occupation or job description is _____________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________. 

4. I have received a copy of the Protective Order entered in the above-entitled action 

on _______________________. 

 

2

 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). (Title III Case numbers are listed as bankruptcy case numbers due to software limitations). 

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3216-1 Filed:05/31/18 Entered:05/31/18 16:42:35 Desc:

Exhibit Confidentiality Agreement Page 1 of 2
 - 2 - 

5. I have carefully read and understand the provisions of the Protective Order. 

6. I will comply with all of the provisions of the Protective Order. 

7. I will hold in confidence, will not disclose to anyone not qualified under the 

Protective Order, and will use only for purposes of this action, any Confidential Material that is 

disclosed to me. 

8. I will return all Confidential Information that comes into my possession, and 

documents or things that I have prepared relating thereto, to counsel for the party by whom I am 

employed or retained, or to counsel from whom I received the Confidential Material. 

9. I hereby submit to the jurisdiction of this Court for the purpose of enforcement of 

the Protective Order. 

Dated: ______________ _________________________ 

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3216-1 Filed:05/31/18 Entered:05/31/18 16:42:35 Desc:

Exhibit Confidentiality Agreement Page 2 of 2
§ 33.79 Fuel burning thrust augmentor. Each fuel burning thrust augmentor, including the nozzle, must— ( a ) Provide cutoff of the fuel burning thrust augmentor;
( b ) Permit on-off cycling;
( c ) Be controllable within the intended range of operation;
( d ) Upon a failure or malfunction of augmentor combustion, not cause the engine to lose thrust other than that provided by the augmentor; and
( e ) Have controls that function compatibly with the other engine controls and automatically shut off augmentor fuel flow if the engine rotor speed drops below the minimum rotational speed at which the augmentor is intended to function.
[Amdt. 33-6, 39 FR 35468, Oct. 1, 1974]
§ 205.6 Prohibited exclusion of coverage. ( a ) No warranty or exclusion in the policy or plan or in any endorsement or amendment to the policy or plan, nor any violation of the policy or plan by the carrier, shall remove the liability coverage required by this part, except as specifically approved by the Department. This requirement shall not limit the right of insurers to recover from the carrier for amounts paid.
( b ) A policy of insurance or a self-insurance plan required by this part shall not contain the following exclusions: ( 1 ) Violation of any safety-related requirement imposed by statute or by rule of a government agency.
( 2 ) Liability assumed by the carrier under an agreement to raise the liability limitations of the Warsaw Convention by signing a counterpart to an agreement of carriers (such as the Montreal Agreement, 18900, signed May 13, 1966, agreeing to a limit on the carrier's liability for injury or death of passengers of $75,000 per passenger), or any amendment to such agreement that may be approved by the Department and to which the carrier becomes a party.
[ER-1253, 46 FR 52577, Oct. 27, 1981, as amended by Doc. No. 47939, 57 FR 40100, 40101, Sept. 2, 1992; Doc. No. DOT-OST-2014-0140, 84 FR 15925, Apr. 16, 2019]
<PAGE>   1
                    CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS



As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation by
reference of our report dated March 3, 2000, except for note 17 as to which the
date is March 30, 2000, included in Marketing Specialist Corporation's Annual
Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1999, into Marketing
Specialists Corporation's previously filed registration statement No. 333-85523
on Form S-8. It should be noted that we have performed no audit procedures
subsequent to March 3, 2000, the date of our report, except with respect to the
note 17 as to which the date is March 30, 2000. Furthermore, we have not audited
any financial statements of Marketing Specialists Corporation as of any date or
for any period subsequent to December 31, 1999.


                                                         /s/ Arthur Andersen LLP

                                                             Arthur Andersen LLP

Boston, Massachusetts
April 13, 2000
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4068 

To prohibit firearms dealers from selling a firearm prior to the completion 

of a background check. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 25, 2020 

Mr. BLUMENTHAL (for himself, Mr. MARKEY, Mr. MURPHY, Mr. WHITEHOUSE, Mr. MENENDEZ, Ms. HARRIS, Mr. DURBIN, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, 

Mr. VAN HOLLEN, Ms. HIRONO, Mr. SANDERS, Ms. WARREN, Mr. REED, 

Mr. CASEY, Ms. KLOBUCHAR, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. WYDEN, Ms. BALDWIN, 

Mr. KAINE, Mr. COONS, Mrs. GILLIBRAND, Ms. DUCKWORTH, Mr. 

LEAHY, and Mr. CARDIN) introduced the following bill; which was read 

twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To prohibit firearms dealers from selling a firearm prior 

to the completion of a background check. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Background Check 

5 Completion Act of 2020’’. 

6 SEC. 2. COMPLETION OF BACKGROUND CHECKS. 

7 Section 922(t)(1)(B) of title 18, United States Code, 

8 is amended— 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 4068 IS

1 (1) by striking ‘‘(i)’’; 

2 (2) by striking ‘‘; or’’ and inserting ‘‘; and’’; 

3 and 

4 (3) by striking clause (ii). 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
§ 251.5 Large musical instruments as checked baggage. Each covered carrier shall transport as baggage a musical instrument that is the property of a passenger traveling in air transportation that may not be carried in the aircraft cabin if ( a ) The sum of the length, width, and height measured in inches of the outside linear dimensions of the instrument (including the case) does not exceed 150 inches or the applicable size restrictions for the aircraft;
( b ) The weight of the instrument does not exceed 165 pounds or the applicable weight restrictions for the aircraft; and
( c ) The instrument can be stowed in accordance with the requirements for carriage of carry-on baggage or cargo established by the FAA.
#### Jeanette Borenstein, Respondent, *v.*David Borenstein, Appellant.

(Argued March. 11, 1936;

decided July 8, 1936.)

*409
      *Jonas J. Shapiro, Theodore S. Jaffin*and *Alfred Mann*for appellant.

*Harry T. Zucker*and *Sydney J. Schwartz*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs and Loughran, JJ. Dissenting: Crouch, J. Taking no part: Finch, J.
§ 23.2260 Materials and processes. ( a ) The applicant must determine the suitability and durability of materials used for parts, articles, and assemblies, accounting for the effects of likely environmental conditions expected in service, the failure of which could prevent continued safe flight and landing.
( b ) The methods and processes of fabrication and assembly used must produce consistently sound structures. If a fabrication process requires close control to reach this objective, the applicant must perform the process under an approved process specification.
( c ) Except as provided in paragraphs (f) and (g) of this section, the applicant must select design values that ensure material strength with probabilities that account for the criticality of the structural element. Design values must account for the probability of structural failure due to material variability.
( d ) If material strength properties are required, a determination of those properties must be based on sufficient tests of material meeting specifications to establish design values on a statistical basis.
( e ) If thermal effects are significant on a critical component or structure under normal operating conditions, the applicant must determine those effects on allowable stresses used for design.
( f ) Design values, greater than the minimums specified by this section, may be used, where only guaranteed minimum values are normally allowed, if a specimen of each individual item is tested before use to determine that the actual strength properties of that particular item will equal or exceed those used in the design.
( g ) An applicant may use other material design values if approved by the Administrator.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 13.1

               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 on Form 20-F of Amdocs Limited (the
"Company") for the period ended September 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, Dov
Baharav, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of his knowledge and belief:

     (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.

Dated: December 30, 2004

/s/  DOV BAHARAV
---------------------------------------------------------
Dov Baharav
Chief Executive Officer
Amdocs Management Limited
Exhibit 31.1  CERTIFICATIONS  I, Ron Howell certify that:  1. I have reviewed this Report on Form 10-Q of HST Global, Inc. (the Company) for the period ended June 30, 2014;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;  4. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Company and have:  (a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the Company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;  (b) designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;  (c) evaluated the effectiveness of the Companys disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  (d) disclosed in this report any change in the Companys internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the Companys most recent fiscal quarter (the Companys fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Companys internal control over financial reporting.  5. I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Companys auditors and the audit committee of the Companys Board of Directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):  (a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the Companys ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and  (b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the Companys internal control over financial reporting.  Dated: August 14, 2014By:\s\ Ron HowellRon HowellChief Executive Officer
#### Louis H. Pink, Superintendent of Insurance of the State of New York, as Liquidator of Lloyds Insurance Company of America, Appellant, *v.*Isle Theatrical Corporation, Respondent.

(Submitted September 28, 1936;

decided September 30, 1936.)

Motion for reargument or to amend remittitur denied. (See 271 N. Y. 390.)