alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Editorial Note on Part 302
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 302 appear at 84 FR 15935, Apr. 16, 2019.

§ 302.14 Petitions for reconsideration. ( a ) *Department orders subject to reconsideration; time for filing.* ( 1 ) Unless an order or a rule of the Department specifically provides otherwise: ( i ) Any interested person may file a petition for reconsideration of any interlocutory order issued by the Department that institutes a proceeding; and
( ii ) Any party to a proceeding may file a petition for reconsideration, rehearing, or reargument of final orders issued by the Department (*See* § 302.38), or an interlocutory order that defines the scope and issues of a proceeding or suspends a provision of a tariff on file with the Department.
( 2 ) Unless otherwise provided, petitions for reconsideration shall be filed, in the case of a final order, within twenty (20) days after service thereof, and, in the case of an interlocutory order, within ten (10) days after service. However, neither the filing nor the granting of such a petition shall operate as a stay of such final or interlocutory order unless specifically so ordered by the DOT decisionmaker. Within ten (10) days after a petition for reconsideration, rehearing, or reargument is filed, any party to the proceeding may file an answer in support of or in opposition. Motions for extension of time to file a petition or answer, and for leave to file a petition or answer after the time for the filing has expired, will not be granted except on a showing of unusual and exceptional circumstances, constituting good cause for the movant's inability to meet the established procedural dates.
( b ) *Contents of petition.* A petition for reconsideration, rehearing, or reargument shall state, briefly and specifically, the matters of record alleged to have been erroneously decided, the ground relied upon, and the relief sought. If a decision by the Secretary or Deputy Secretary is requested, the petition should describe in detail the reasons for such request and specify any important national transportation policy issues that are presented. If the petition is based, in whole or in part, on allegations as to the consequences that would result from the final order, the basis of such allegations shall be set forth. If the petition is based, in whole or in part, on new matter, such new matter shall be set forth, accompanied by a statement to the effect that petitioner, with due diligence, could not have known or discovered such new matter prior to the date the case was submitted for decision. Unless otherwise directed by the DOT decisionmaker upon a showing of unusual or exceptional circumstances, petitions for reconsideration, rehearing or reargument or answers thereto that exceed twenty-five (25) pages (including appendices) in length shall not be accepted for filing by Department of Transportation Dockets.
( c ) *Successive petitions.* A successive petition for rehearing, reargument, reconsideration filed by the same party or person, and upon substantially the same ground as a former petition that has been considered or denied will not be entertained.
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT C ARM ELITA C ORPUZ FELISC O,

Pe t i tione r, v. JEFF B . SESSIONS, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 14-71520 Age n c y No. A200-401-772 M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 14, 2017 * * B e fore : GOODW IN, FARR IS, an d FER NANDEZ, C irc uit Judge s. C arm e lita C orpuzFe l isc o, a

native and c itiz e n of the Philippine s, pe t itions for re vie w of the B o a

rd of Im m igration Appe a ls’ orde r dism issing he r a ppe a l from an im m igration judge ’ s (“ IJ” ) disc re tiona ry de n ia l of a d

justm e nt of sta

tus a nd a wa ive r of fra

ud or m i sre p re se ntation unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1182(i). Our jurisdiction is 

# FIL ED FEB 22 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent ex cept as provided by

Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).gove rne d

by 8 U.S.C . § 1252. W e re v ie w de novo c onstitutiona l c l a im s a nd que stions of la

w. Mohamme d v . Gonzale s , 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th C ir. 2005). W e de ny in pa

rt a n d dism iss in pa

rt the pe tition for re vie w . C orpuzFe lisc o c onte n ds the a ge nc y viola te d due proc e s s in a dm i tting, c onside ring, a

nd m isc ha

ra c te riz ing e vide nc e . Howe ve r, he r a lle ge d due proc e ss c la im s fa il be c a

use she ha s not e sta

blishe d e rror and pre

judic e . Se e Lata v . IN

S , 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th C ir. 2000) (a va lid due proc e ss c la im in the re m o va l c onte xt re quire s a

showing of both “ e rror and substa ntia l pre judic e ” ). The re c ord doe s not support C orpuzFe lisc o’ s c onte ntion tha t the IJ re ve a le d a pe rsona l bia s a ga inst he r suc h tha t she wa s de nie d a

full a nd fa ir he aring. Se e Vargas-He r

nande z v . Gonzale

s , 497 F.3d 919, 926 (9th C ir. 2007) (a lle gations of bia s we re unde rm ine d by t he IJ’ s profe s siona l be havior a nd the IJ’ s de c ision c onside re d a ll issue s ra ise d by a lie n). To the e xte nt C orpuzFe lisc o c onte nds the a ge nc y a b use d its disc re tion in de ny ing a djustm e nt of sta tus a nd a wa ive r, we la c k jurisdic tion to re vie w tha t disc re tiona

ry de te rm i nation. Se e 8 U.S.C . § 1252(a )(2)(B )(i), (D). PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D in par t; DISM ISSE D in par t.

1 4 - 7 1 5 2 0 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from
financial statements for the nine months ended August 31, 2000, and
is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          NOV-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-31-2000
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,294
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        20,440
<OTHER-SE>                                    (21,734)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                11,434
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (11,434)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (11,434)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 (1,208)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (12,642)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Norman Calvert, Appellant.

[697 NYS2d 658]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rios, J.), rendered December 23, 1996, convicting him of assault in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The trial court’s *Sandoval*ruling, permitting the prosecutor to cross-examine the defendant concerning two prior convictions for assault, was proper. Those offenses were relevant on the issues of the defendant’s credibility as a witness and his *227willingness to place his interests above those of society *(see, People v Sandoval,*34 NY2d 371, 377; *People v Byrd,*173 AD2d 549; *People v Ferreira,*172 AD2d 769; *People v Noeth,*162 AD2d 724).

The defendant’s remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental *pro se*brief, are without merit. Thompson, J. P., Joy, McGinity and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.
#### § 29.1529 Instructions for Continued Airworthiness.

The applicant must prepare Instructions for Continued Airworthiness in accordance with appendix A to this part that are acceptable to the Administrator. The instructions may be incomplete at type certification if a program exists to ensure their completion prior to delivery of the first rotorcraft or issuance of a standard certificate of airworthiness, whichever occurs later.

[Amdt. 29-20, 45 FR 60178, Sept. 11, 1980]
#### McGINNIS v. THE STATE.

(Decided April 6, 1916.)

Appeal from Marengo Law and Equity Court.

Heard before Hon. E. J. Gilder.

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

Pelham, P. J.

No bill of exceptions, no error of record. Affirmed.
§ 25.1360 Precautions against injury. ( a ) Shock. The electrical system must be designed to minimize risk of electric shock to crew, passengers, and servicing personnel and to maintenance personnel using normal precautions.
( b ) Burns. The temperature of any part that may be handled by a crewmember during normal operations must not cause dangerous inadvertent movement by the crewmember or injury to the crewmember.
[Amdt. 25-123, 72 FR 63406, Nov. 8, 2007]
<PAGE>

Exhibit 99.1

                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 First Reserve, Inc. (the "Company") Annual Report on Form
10-K for the year ending December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Allen C. Harper,
Chairman and Chief Executive Financial 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, to the best of my knowledge:

     (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 results of operations of the
Company.


Date: March 28, 2003                    By: /s/ Allen C. Harper
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            Allen C. Harper
                                            Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
Mr. Dennis DeVany 

Chief, Essential Air Service Division 

Office of Aviation Analysis 

US Dept. of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE 

Washington DC, 20590 

August 201 2012 

-:.::_:t 

Lv 

RE: DOT-OST-2000-8556- Continuation of Alaska Airlines EAS Service at Adak, Alaska 

Dear Mr. DeVany, 

This letter is to express strong support for Alaska Airlines being selected to continue to 

provide essential air service using jet aircraft to our community. 

Adak Community Development Corporation (ACDC) is a non-profit community 

organization devoted to promoting seafood harvesting and processing capacity in Adak. 

ACDC has invested in seafood infrastructure in Adak that is extremely dependant on 

the type and reliability of service provided by Alaska Airlines. 

We have reviewed all of the proposals for provision of Essential Air Service and firmly 

believe that Alaska Airlines in the best value. 

The service Alaska Airlines is currently providing is critical for the continued access 

and economic well being of Adak as well as that of this entire region of the state. 

The existing pattern of service - using jet aircraft - offers important benefits that would 

be difficult, if not impossible, to match with any other type of service or aircraft type: 

0' Route network / ease of connections - Alaska Airlines route system now stretches 

coast to coast and marketing partnerships with other carriers provide virtually a 

global reach. Service from our community to the hub in Anchorage provides easy 

access to this network. 

D~' Freight capabilities - Our community depends on scheduled air freight shipments 

for many of our daily necessities and the added cargo capacity of Alaska's "combi" 

aircraft is extremely important. Additionally, our economic base is closely tied to 
commercial fishing. Alaska's jet service offers key cargo capacity allowing transport 

of seafood products to the rest of the U.S. in a timely, dependable manner. 

Given the lack of any road system connecting our extremely remote community with the 

rest of the state, Adak is particularly isolated. Accordingly, ACDC and the other 

participants in the seafood industry are extremely dependent on reliable air access. 

Alaska Airlines has provided this access very capably for the many years. 

For these reasons, we respectfully urge DOT to select Alaska Airlines for continued 

essential air service to Adak. 

Thank you for your consideration of our comments. 

Sincerely, 

Adak Community Development Corporation 

P.O. Box 1943 

Adak A , 99546
Exhibit 32.1

Certification of the Chief Executive Officer

and the Chief Financial Officer

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 Cost Plus, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended May 1, 2010
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Barry J. Feld, Chief Executive Officer and President, and Jane L. Baughman, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, hereby certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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.



|                                          
|------------------------------------------
|/s/    Barry J. Feld                      
|Barry J. Feld                             
|Chief Executive Officer and President     
|(Principal Executive Officer)             
|                                          
|May 28, 2010                              
|                                          
|/s/    Jane L. Baughman                   
|Jane L. Baughman                          
|Executive Vice President,                 
|Chief Financial Officer                   
|(Principal Financial & Accounting Officer)
|                                          
|May 28, 2010
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION

In connection with the Annual Report
of Graham Packaging Holdings Company on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, David W. Bullock, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350,
as adopted pursuant to 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 Graham Packaging Holdings
Company.
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: March 10, 2010



By:

/s/ David W. BullockDavid W. BullockChief Financial Officer(principal financial officer)


The
foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate
disclosure document.
1

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-24-00234-CR

__________________

IN RE SAMAD SEFIANE

__________________________________________________________________

Original Proceeding

Criminal District Court of Jefferson County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 17-27943

__________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In a petition asking this Court to issue a writ of mandamus, Samad Sefiane 

complains that Jamie Smith, the Jefferson County District Clerk, failed to timely file 

and transmit documents Sefiane filed with the District Clerk in Trial Cause Number 

17-27943 to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.1 See Tex. R. App. P. 52; see 

generally Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 11.07, § 3. We dismiss the petition. 

1Relator was convicted of aggravated family violence assault in the Criminal 

District Court of Jefferson County, Texas, in Trial Cause Number 17-27943. See 

Sefiane v. State, No. 09-18-00216-CR, 2019 WL 2439490 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 

June 12, 2019, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for publication). Even though 

Sefiane didn’t certify that he served a copy of his petition for mandamus on the 
2

Intermediate courts of appeal do not have jurisdiction to command actions to 

be taken by a district clerk unless the party making the request shows that issuing a 

writ is necessary to enforce the appellate court’s jurisdiction over an appeal. SeeTex.

Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221(a), (b). Sefiane did not do so here. Accordingly, we 

dismiss Sefiane’s petition for lack of jurisdiction.

PETITION DISMISSED.

PER CURIAM

Submitted on July 23, 2024

Opinion Delivered July 24, 2024

Do Not Publish

Before Johnson, Wright and Chambers, JJ.

Respondent and the Real Party in Interest, we suspend that requirement under the 

circumstances to expedite resolving the complaints that he has raised in his petition. 

See Tex. R. App. P. 2 (Suspension of Rules); id. 9.5(a) (Service of All Documents 

Required).
#### Josephs v. Silver

*393*Levi, Mandel & Miller,*for plaintiff.

*Wexler, Mulder & Weisman,*for defendants.

February 19, 1958.

Box, P. J.,

These are preliminary objections, the ground being that the service on defendant, Harry Silver, by the deputized sheriff of Montgomery County was not authorized under Pa. R. C. P. 1504. This rule allows such service when one of the principal defendants has already been served in the county of suit, in this case Philadelphia.

Preliminary objections by the Liberty Real Estate Bank and Trust Company have been sustained and plaintiff given leave to amend. Until the amended bill is settled as to the bank, we cannot tell whether it can be counted as *“a*principal defendant”.

I think that there is even deeper trouble and that plaintiff must amend her complaint before we can pass upon even these preliminary objections. The complaint is not at the moment self-sustaining. It sues Silver and Freedman as individual defendants and alleges an agreement as fixing their liability. But the agreement is signed “Oxford Products, Inc., by Alvin Freedman” and “Oxford Products, Inc., by Harry Silver.”

These are corporate and not individual obligations, and the complaint nowhere explains why these two men are sued individually.

Beyond this, we do not know that Alvin Freedman, who accepted service, lives in Philadelphia County. His address is given as “15 Latham Parkway, Melrose *394Park, Pennsylvania,” and we cannot take judicial notice that it is a Philadelphia address; it may be in any of the 67 counties of the State. Hence, an accepted service, even if valid, could not count as a Philadelphia service so as to qualify Freedman as a principal defendant. Nor does the attorney who accepted service for Freedman give a Philadelphia address, or any address at all.

More, I note that Pa. R. C. P. 1011 authorized acceptance of service in assumpsit actions and that there is no analogous rule for equity. I doubt my right to extend the equitable rules in face of such indication that acceptance of service was deliberately restricted to actions in assumpsit.

The preliminary objections are sustained, and plaintiff is given the right to amend her complaint within 20 days.
Cl

'

.

·. ·-·r-- i::l.l:l •. rnl.G:li7Clll 

### !i'rrocvarrc tiU=lco!**~ ~lo**  

### Dcloo**~Wm** 

### 70702

. '·'.· '· Atl!;!OI.· l?-.J o**!7~**

.· 

### .....**··~-·"** 

### - 

### . . '

...**~** ...



### -- ·.**~** - 

## ..**~-** 

### tl!;>-. D::!.o:NWtJI**"~·** . 

### . 

## .. ·. . . Uo1 

### t".exuurn.co&li.isoo 1:0.**~-** _**-~··&io i~liCil.co** **ilool~ ~**  I Q!oo::ll!:!(J 

# oz !?oilcoll'D 

### end C)C'.::} 

## i oolplmu Ot'.l!?CO Cloclr.. tbC**~col** oililcce-uo!ccocll.ow oit**c:::ni.oo~** t'.:;:ig a> 

### oo&**~=o** 

### oo**~QWtl::::J** j).o 

# v=**~** 

### a1,**!~Y9 !e?.~oz** 

-· ·· .•.**~** 

### -il.o 

### r:o**~~ro.** &t:la& ctio 

### l?OI?l:lfte**~=c** f!oir &m 

### all"""**?91"9~cd** 

### I?CO.:lcic oc**~** 

### Uoc!o Qc:J 

### l?!ooc .!2c:J 

### 1:l= OfN110170'J \')V 

### &1:!8**i'a~cwl** 

### ' lh:u>oeoey 

### ol! Cb la;)jl.ojl,rm 

### ME**~crol Ct;;--i~ooll.oo**  

### =101"**~** 

### Ci.•i!:.-A •.

_**~ oot:JSc~**  

# = · ovvu>crvc:'.I**~** 

# cm Dooil.o 

### oil**~** 

### c;:iiooilAD**~ca** cd -{±a 0Di;>!1Cronl l'l.o c:> 

### OOV [Jt:$00C= 

### ciao 

# ooaaao**o~ pirooc:n<!~**  

### OliU 

### 1Jo CDVO!':>lo oi 

### =clro!lion Cb 

### c:::&Jo&ooo co 

### Cl2o eyvoo 

### mcl**cao!E~i,ia)** ococca •. t; ooo aw:H.il.coctiloo =c 

### 1Jo c:::i!::Jll.cccil M Cbo 

### eotJORCod c::::iioc:ii.= 

### ciro a:icc:Xlo::'l 

### o.ilcoir cpou>ocil.c:l 13o[)ll.oo •

. , I• 

### :.__ .**~** 

### 11oooSc =:Joo 

### mi.coo Do!= obcl.c'.l 

### 1Jo iroilO!:'mCOO il.o !?on= QQU'!1Co**~ UC[!Ql?~**  cMo**c:ll':>j~CI**

,.

<' ••

## i.iiJj~-- 

# ..

. ··:· 

### -· ... '**J=li'.~ ':.'o~col!.**  Ooeiroiloey**~ea** 1

_ 

### Di:Ml.odl 

### 1J&Q**o~** al1l 

### eo!oeocc.1 c::::Jil.ooi\c'"'.__!) &:a**~oi'O** 

## fli?iml i; 1000 •

. · ... ._' :···1. ,.

. ·



## ... 

## - .· ..... , 

### ..**·~·**

•. 

### ·-

-' 

### .......



# ..



# --- \