alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### [175] Rathbone & Banks *vs.*Tucker & Carter.

Error from the supreme court. Tucker and Carter recovered a judgment against Rathbone and Banks in the superior court of the city of ¡New York, which was *affirmed*on writ of error by the supreme court. (See 15 *Wendell,*498.) The defendants removed the record into this court, where the judgment below was unanimously *affirmed.*The only opinion delivered in this court in favor of affirmance, was by the chancellor, who adverted to a fact found in the bill of exceptions not noticed before in the discussions of the case, viz: that when *Servoss*gave his note he took a receipt specifying that it had been given at *nine months' credit*for the amount of the plaintiff’s bill against the ship *Nashville.*

Judgment affirmed.
§ 389.23 Application for waiver or modification of fees. ( a ) Applications may be filed asking for waiver or modification of any fee paid under this subpart. Each applicant shall set forth the reasons why a waiver or modification should be granted, and by what legal authority.
( b ) Applications asking for a waiver or modification of fees shall be sent to the Director, Office of Aviation Analysis, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. This provision is in accordance § 385.30 of this chapter. When no petition for review is filed with the Department, or when the Department reviews the Director's decision, if the amount found due is not paid within 10 days after receipt of notification of the final determination, the document shall be returned to the filing party.
IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY 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

Debtor

PROMESA title III

No. 17 BK 3283-LTS

(Jointly Administered)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS ATTORNEY AND TO CEASE 

NOTIFICATIONS

This matter is before the court on attorney María Fernanda Vélez Pastrana’s Motion to 

Withdraw as Attorney and Requesting Order to Cease Notifications. Finding good cause for the 

requested relief, this Court GRANTS the Motion. Accordingly:

1. Attorney María Fernanda Vélez Pastrana is allowed to withdraw as counsel for 

creditor REPARTO METROPOLITANO.

2. Attorney María Fernanda Vélez Pastrana will be removed from the list of persons 

to be notified of all documents electronically filed in this case.

This Order resolves Dkt. No. ________.

Dated: September _____, 2018

__________________________________

 HON. LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3876-1 Filed:09/06/18 Entered:09/06/18 17:48:04 Desc:

Proposed Order Page 1 of 1
Editorial Note on Part 302
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 302 appear at 84 FR 15935, Apr. 16, 2019.

§ 302.13 Consolidation of proceedings. ( a ) *Initiation of consolidations.* The Department, upon its own initiative or upon motion, may consolidate for hearing or for other purposes or may contemporaneously consider two or more proceedings that involve substantially the same parties, or issues that are the same or closely related, if it finds that such consolidation or contemporaneous consideration will be conducive to the proper dispatch of its business and to the ends of justice and will not unduly delay the proceedings. Although the Department may, in any particular case, consolidate or contemporaneously consider two or more proceedings on its own motion, the burden of seeking consolidation or contemporaneous consideration of a particular application shall rest upon the applicant and the Department will not undertake to search its docket for all applications that might be consolidated or contemporaneously considered.
( b ) *Time for filing.* Unless the Department has provided otherwise in a particular proceeding, a motion to consolidate or contemporaneously consider an application with any other application shall be filed within 21 days of the original application in the case of international route awards under section 41102 of 49 U.S.C. Subtitle VII (*see* § 302.212), or, where a proceeding has been set for hearing before an administrative law judge, not later than the prehearing conference in the proceeding with which consolidation or contemporaneous consideration is requested. If made at such conference, the motion may be oral. All motions for consolidation or consideration of issues that enlarge, expand, or otherwise change the nature of the proceeding shall be addressed to the DOT decisionmaker, unless made orally at the prehearing conference, in which event the presiding administrative law judge shall present such motion to the DOT decisionmaker for his or her decision. A motion that is not timely filed, or that does not relate to an application pending at such time, shall be dismissed unless the movant shall clearly show good cause for failure to file such motion or application on time.
( c ) *Answer.* If a motion to consolidate two or more proceedings is filed with the Department, any party to any of such proceedings, or any person who has a petition for intervention pending, may file an answer to such motion within such period as the DOT decisionmaker may permit. The administrative law judge may require that answers to such motions be stated orally at the prehearing conference in the proceeding with which the consolidation is proposed.
# EPA Registration Jacket 19713-539

Vol. 2______________________________________________________________

Page is not included in this copy.

Pages 36_ through 40 are not included in this copy.

_______________________________________________________________

The material not included contains the following type of
information:

_____ Identity of product inert ingredients.

_____ Identity of product impurities.

_____ Description of the product manufacturing process.

_____ Description of quality control procedures.

_____ Identity of the source of product ingredients.

_____ Sales or other commercial/financial information.

_____ A draft product label.

_____ The product confidential statement of formula.

_____ Information about a pending registration action.

_____ FIFRA registration data.

_____ The document is a duplicate of page(s) _______.

_____ The document is not responsive to the request.

_____ Proprietary information pertaining to the chemical composition of an inert ingredient provided by the source of the ingredient.

_____ Attorney-Client Privilege.

__X__ Claimed Confidential by submitter upon submission to the

Agency.

_____ Internal Deliberative Information.

* The information not included is generally considered confidential by product registrants. If you have any questions, please contact the individual who prepared the response to your request.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Page is not included in this copy.

Pages 47_ through 48 are not included in this copy.

_______________________________________________________________

The material not included contains the following type of
information:

_____ Identity of product inert ingredients.

_____ Identity of product impurities.

_____ Description of the product manufacturing process.

_____ Description of quality control procedures.

_____ Identity of the source of product ingredients.

_____ Sales or other commercial/financial information.

_____ A draft product label.

_____ The product confidential statement of formula.

_____ Information about a pending registration action.

_____ FIFRA registration data.

_____ The document is a duplicate of page(s) _______.

_____ The document is not responsive to the request.

_____ Proprietary information pertaining to the chemical composition of an inert ingredient provided by the source of the ingredient.

_____ Attorney-Client Privilege.

__X__ Claimed Confidential by submitter upon submission to the

Agency.

_____ Internal Deliberative Information.

* The information not included is generally considered confidential by product registrants. If you have any questions, please contact the individual who prepared the response to your request.

_________________________________________________________________
§ 27.473 Ground loading conditions and assumptions. ( a ) For specified landing conditions, a design maximum weight must be used that is not less than the maximum weight. A rotor lift may be assumed to act through the center of gravity throughout the landing impact. This lift may not exceed two-thirds of the design maximum weight.
( b ) Unless otherwise prescribed, for each specified landing condition, the rotorcraft must be designed for a limit load factor of not less than the limit inertia load factor substantiated under § 27.725.
[Amdt. 27-2, 33 FR 963, Jan. 26, 1968]
EXHIBIT 32



Section 906 Certification



Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officers of Host Marriott Corporation, the general partner of
Host Marriott, L.P., (the Company) hereby certify, to such officers knowledge, that:



(i) the accompanying Annual Report of Form 10-K of the Company for the period ended December 31, 2004 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of
the securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended:

and



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



Dated: March 1, 2005



/s/ Christopher J. NassettaChristopher J. NassettaChief Executive Officer of Host Marriott Corporation/s/ W. Edward WalterW. Edward WalterChief Financial Officer of Host Marriott Corporation
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:27 Filed:05/09/17 Entered:05/11/17 14:24:18 Desc: Main

Document Page 1 of 5
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:27 Filed:05/09/17 Entered:05/11/17 14:24:18 Desc: Main

Document Page 2 of 5
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:27 Filed:05/09/17 Entered:05/11/17 14:24:18 Desc: Main

Document Page 3 of 5
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:27 Filed:05/09/17 Entered:05/11/17 14:24:18 Desc: Main

Document Page 4 of 5
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:27 Filed:05/09/17 Entered:05/11/17 14:24:18 Desc: Main

Document Page 5 of 5
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h

Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,

J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk March 29, 2010

p0322 

# Order

March 29, 2010

140189

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 140189 COA: 286821 Wayne CC: 07-024999-FH SHAWN STERLING COATS, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the November 12, 2009 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented s hould be reviewed by this Court.
24.2 - Certified  copy of the  Resolution of the Board of Directors  authorizing
signatures pursuant to power of attorney

                                     EXTRACT
                                      FROM
                           BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING
                                  MARCH 7, 2002

 After discussion, upon motion duly seconded, it was

         RESOLVED, That the proper officers of the Corporation be, and hereby
         are, and each of them with the full authority without the others hereby
         is, authorized, empowered and directed, in the name and on behalf of
         the Corporation, to execute the Corporation's Form 10-K for the year
         ended December 31, 2001, in a form substantially similar to the form to
         be provided to the Directors of the Corporation for their review, with
         such changes as such proper officers, with the advice of counsel deem
         necessary or desirable, the execution by such proper officers to be
         conclusive evidence that they or he/she deemed such changes to be
         necessary or desirable, and to execute any amendment to such Form 10-K,
         to procure all necessary signatures thereon, and to file such Form 10-K
         and any amendment when so executed (together with appropriate exhibits
         thereto) with the Securities and Exchange Commission;

         RESOLVED, That the proper officers of the Corporation are, authorized,
         empowered and directed in the name and on behalf of the Corporation to
         execute and deliver any and all such documents, certificates,
         instruments, agreements, or regulatory filing, including any
         amendments, modifications, or supplements thereto, and to take all such
         further action as any such officer or other such authorized person
         deems necessary, proper, convenient, or desirable in order to carry out
         the foregoing resolutions and to effectuate the purposes and intents
         thereof, the taking of any such action to be conclusive evidence of the
         approval thereof by the directors of the Corporation; and

         FURTHER RESOLVED, That all actions previously taken and all documents,
         instruments, certificates and the like previously executed by directors
         or officers of the Corporation or other authorized persons in
         connection with the matters referred to in the foregoing resolutions be
         hereby approved, ratified and confirmed in all respects.


I, Richard A. Rapp, Jr., Secretary of KeySpan Corporation, DO HEREBY CERTIFY
that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of resolutions duly adopted by the
Board of Directors at a regularly held meeting on March 7, 2002 and that such
resolutions are in full force and effect on the date of this certification.

WITNESS my hand and seal of the Corporation this 14th day of March, 2002.


 /s/ Richard A. Rapp, Jr.
§ 29.1353 Energy storage systems. Energy storage systems must be designed and installed as follows: ( a ) Energy storage systems must provide automatic protective features for any conditions that could prevent continued safe flight and landing.
( b ) Energy storage systems must not emit any flammable, explosive, or toxic gases, smoke, or fluids that could accumulate in hazardous quantities within the rotorcraft.
( c ) Corrosive fluids or gases that escape from the system must not damage surrounding structures, adjacent equipment, or systems necessary for continued safe flight and landing.
( d ) The maximum amount of heat and pressure that can be generated during any operation or under any failure condition of the energy storage system or its individual components must not result in any hazardous effect on rotorcraft structure, equipment, or systems necessary for continued safe flight and landing.
( e ) Energy storage system installations required for continued safe flight and landing of the rotorcraft must have monitoring features and a means to indicate to the pilot the status of all critical system parameters.
[Amdt. 29-59, 88 FR 8740, Feb. 10, 2023]
No. 76-1409.

#### Villarreal *v.*United States.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-22-00251-CR

Jose Luis Regalado, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE 207TH DISTRICT COURT OF COMAL COUNTY

NO. CR2020-874, THE HONORABLE R. BRUCE BOYER, JUDGE PRESIDING

O R D E R A N D M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

PER CURIAM

Jose Luis Regalado was charged with two counts of the second-degree felony 

offense of indecency with a child by contact. See Tex. Penal Code § 21.11(d). During trial, 

Regalado pleaded not guilty to both charges. At the conclusion of the trial, the jury found 

Regalado guilty on both counts as charged. After his convictions, the district court issued its 

certification of Regalado’s right of appeal with check marks next to the boxes certifying that this 

case “is a plea-bargain case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal” and that “the defendant 

has waived the right of appeal.”

When determining whether an appellant in a criminal case has the right to appeal, 

we examine the trial court’s certification for defectiveness, defined as “a certification which is 

correct in form but which, when compared to the record before the court, proves to be 

inaccurate.” Dears v. State, 154 S.W.3d 610, 614 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). If the certification 
2

appears to be defective, we must obtain a correct certification. Id. at 614-15. Based on the 

record before this Court, the district court’s certification signed on April 25, 2022, appears to be 

incorrect. See id. at 614.

Accordingly, we abate the appeal and remand the case to the district court to issue 

a new certification. See Tex. R. App. P. 37.1 (requiring appellate court to notify parties if there 

appears to be defect in certification); Dears, 154 S.W.3d at 614 (stating that appellate courts 

have authority under Rules of Appellate Procedure “to obtain another certification, whenever 

appropriate”). The district court clerk is instructed to forward to this Court a supplemental 

clerk’s record containing the new certification no later than September 19, 2022. See Tex. R. 

App. P. 34.5(c)(2).

It is ordered on August 18, 2022.

Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices Triana and Smith

Abated and Remanded

Filed: August 18, 2022

Do Not Publish
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-23-00611-CV

LITTMAN STUDIO, LLC,

Appellant

v.

WEINRITTER ST. PAUL SQUARE, LLC,

Appellee

From the 408th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2021-CI-19896

Honorable Nicole Garza, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Irene Rios Justice

Beth Watkins, Justice

Delivered and Filed: August 23, 2023

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION

On June 22, 2023, Appellant Littman Studio, LLC filed a notice of appeal challenging the

trial court’s June 16, 2023 order. When appellant filed the notice of appeal, it was required to pay 

a $205.00 filing fee. See TEX. R. APP. P. 5. However, appellant did not pay the filing fee, and we 

notified appellant in writing the notice of appeal had been conditionally filed because the $205.00 

filing fee had not been paid. We instructed appellant to pay the fee by July 6, 2023 and cautioned 

if the fee was not paid, the appeal was subject to being stricken by this court. The fee was not paid. 
04-23-00611-CV

- 2 -

On July 18, 2023, we ordered appellant to either: (1) pay the filing fee; or (2) provide 

written proof it was entitled to appeal without paying the $205.00 filing fee. We warned appellant 

if it failed to respond within the time ordered, we would dismiss the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 5, 

42.3(c). 

Appellant has not paid the filing fee or otherwise responded to our order. Accordingly, we 

dismiss this appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 5, 42.3(c); Zayas v. Denson, No. 04-18-00373-CV, 2018 

WL 3551193, at *1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio July 25, 2018, no pet.) (mem. op.) (dismissing 

appeal for failure to pay filing fee).

PER CURIAM
§ 375.35 Free transportation. ( a ) Foreign civil aircraft may be navigated in the United States by a foreign air carrier for the transportation of persons and property specified in paragraph (b) of this section over the following non-traffic segments provided such transportation is not for compensation or hire: ( 1 ) Between two or more points in the United States;
( 2 ) Between a point in the United States named in the carrier's section 41301 permit or exemption, and a point outside the United States not so named, when authorized in accordance with the provisions of part 216 of this chapter to carry blind sector traffic to or from such unnamed foreign point; and
( 3 ) Between a point in the United States and a point outside thereof when the carrier lands at the United States point for non-traffic purposes in exercise of the privilege granted under the International Air Services Transit Agreement.
( b ) Free transportation may be provided under this section for the following categories of persons and property: ( 1 ) Directors, officers and employees, and their parents and immediate families, of the foreign air carrier operating the aircraft;
( 2 ) Directors, officers and employees, and their parents and immediate families, of an air carrier or another foreign air carrier traveling pursuant to a pass interchange arrangement;
( 3 ) Travel agents being transported for the purpose of familiarizing themselves with the carrier's services, if the agents are under no obligation to sell the transporting carrier's services;
( 4 ) Witnesses and attorneys attending any legal investigation in which any such foreign air carrier is involved;
( 5 ) Persons injured in aircraft accidents and physicians and nurses attending such persons;
( 6 ) Any persons or property with the object of providing relief in cases of general epidemic, natural disaster or other catastrophe;
( 7 ) Any person who has the duty of guarding foreign government officials travelling on official business; and
( 8 ) Guests of a foreign air carrier (including members of the press) on delivery flights of newly-acquired or newly-renovated aircraft.
( c ) A charge reasonably related to the value of meals and beverages furnished enroute shall not be deemed to constitute compensation or hire for purposes of this section.
[OST Doc. No. 42547, 51 FR 7254, Mar. 3, 1986, as amended by Doc. No. DOT-OST-2014-0140, 84 FR 15940, Apr. 16, 2019]