alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 61.95 Operations in Class B airspace and at airports located within Class B airspace. ( a ) A student pilot may not operate an aircraft on a solo flight in Class B airspace unless: ( 1 ) The student pilot has received both ground and flight training from an authorized instructor on that Class B airspace area, and the flight training was received in the specific Class B airspace area for which solo flight is authorized;
( 2 ) The logbook of that student pilot has been endorsed by the authorized instructor who gave the student pilot flight training, and the endorsement is dated within the 90-day period preceding the date of the flight in that Class B airspace area; and
( 3 ) The logbook endorsement specifies that the student pilot has received the required ground and flight training, and has been found proficient to conduct solo flight in that specific Class B airspace area.
( b ) A student pilot may not operate an aircraft on a solo flight to, from, or at an airport located within Class B airspace pursuant to § 91.131(b) of this chapter unless: ( 1 ) The student pilot has received both ground and flight training from an instructor authorized to provide training to operate at that airport, and the flight and ground training has been received at the specific airport for which the solo flight is authorized;
( 2 ) The logbook of that student pilot has been endorsed by an authorized instructor who gave the student pilot flight training, and the endorsement is dated within the 90-day period preceding the date of the flight at that airport; and
( 3 ) The logbook endorsement specifies that the student pilot has received the required ground and flight training, and has been found proficient to conduct solo flight operations at that specific airport.
( c ) This section does not apply to a student pilot seeking a sport pilot certificate or a recreational pilot certificate.
[Doc. No. 25910, 62 FR 16298, Apr. 4, 1997; Amdt. 61-103, 62 FR 40902, July 30, 1997; Amdt. 61-110, 69 FR 44868, July 27, 2004]
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

PUBLIC MEETING ON ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR

AUTOMATIC COMMERCIAL ICE MAKERS

U.S. Department of Energy

1000 Independence Avenue, SW.

Washington, DC 20585

T h u r sday, February 1 6 , 201 2

Room 8E

- 089

Purpose

The Department of Energy (DOE) seeks comments, information, and data from interested parties on

the Energy Conservation Standard (ECS) Preliminary A nalyses for A utomatic C ommercial I c e

M akers (ACIM)

.

Agenda

9:00

– 9:3 0 am Welcome, Introductions, Agenda Review, & Opening Statements

Doug Brookman

Interested parties make a brief summary of their comments.

9:30

– 9:40 am Standards Rulemaking Overview

Charles Llenza

Summary of the statutory background, rulemaking process, and the issues

on which DOE se eks input during today’s public meeting.

Test Procedure Final Rule Availability

Charles Llenza

Notification of the availability of the Final Rule for Test Procedures

9 : 4 0

– 10 : 40 am Market and Technology Assessment, Screening Analysis, and

Engineering Analysis

Detlef Westphalen

Summary presentation and discussion regarding the approach used and

factors considered for the market and technology assessment, screening

analysis, and engineering analysis.

10 : 40

– 11:2 0 am Markups Analysis, Energy Use Analysis, and Life

- Cycle Cost and

Payback Period Analysis

Alan Cooke

Summary presentation and discussion regarding the approach used and

factors considered for the markups to determine equipment price analysis,

energy use analysis, and l ife

- cycle cost and payback period analysis.11: 20

– 1 1 : 5 0 a m Shipments Analysis and National Impact Analysis

Nathaniel Clayville

Summary presentation and discussion regarding the approach used and

factors considered for the shipments analysis and national energy savings

and net present value analysis.

11 : 5 0 am

– 12:05 p m Manufacturer Impact Analysis

Ben Barrington

Summary presentation and discussion regarding the approach to be used

and factors to be considered for the manufacturer impact analysis.

1 2 : 05

– 1 :00 pm Lunch

1: 00

– 1 : 3 0 pm NOPR Analyses: Utility Impact Analysis, Employment Impact

Analysis, Emissions Analysis and Valuation, and Regulatory Impact

Analysis

Alan Cooke

Description o f analyses DOE will conduct at the NOPR stage of the

rulemaking.

1 : 3 0

– 2 : 0 0 pm Next Steps and Closing Remarks

Doug Brookman

Final discussions on today’s issues and closing remarks.
Sec. 2-1 Generally accepted accounting principles. ( a ) The accounting provisions contained in this part are based on generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP). Persons subject to this part are authorized to implement, as prescribed by the Financial Accounting Standards Board, newly issued GAAP pronouncements until and unless the Director, Office of Airline Information (OAI), issues an Accounting Directive making an initial determination that implementation of a new pronouncement would adversely affect the Department's programs.
( b ) The Director, OAI, shall review each newly issued GAAP pronouncement to determine its affect on the Department's regulatory programs. If adopting a specific change in GAAP would adversely affect the Department's programs, the Director will issue the results of the review in the form of an Accounting Directive. The directive will state the reasons why the particular change should not be incorporated in the uniform system of accounts and contain accounting guidance for maintaining the integrity of the Department's air carrier accounting provisions.
( c ) Objections and comments relating to the Department's decision not to implement a change in generally accepted principles may be addressed to Director, Office of Airline Information, K-25, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. If significant objections are raised urging adoption of a particular GAAP pronouncement, the Department will institute a rulemaking.
[[Amdt. 241-58, 54 FR 5592, Feb. 6, 1989, as amended at 60 FR 66723, Dec. 26, 1995]
11 TH COURT OF APPEALS
EASTLAND , TEXAS
JUDGMENT

Jermiah Joseph Delao
, * From the 70th District Court of Ector County, Trial Court No. A

- 20

- 0904

- CR

.

Vs

. No. 11

- 2 4

- 00 055

- CR * April 11, 2024

The State of Texas, * Memorand um Opinion by Bailey, C.J. (P anel consists of: Bailey , C.J., Trotter , J., and W illiams, J.)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that t he appeal should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Therefore, in accordance with this

co urt’s opinion, the appeal is dismissed.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADDED BY

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of SunCoast Bancorp, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2006 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, John S. Wilks, Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer) of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 1350, as added
by § 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. | To my knowledge, the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of and for
the period covered by the report.
|-- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                      |  |     |  |                                                               
|--------------------- |  | --- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: August 11, 2006 |  | By: |  | /s/ John S. Wilks                                             
|                      |  |     |  | John S. Wilks, Chief Financial Officer                        
|                      |  |     |  | (Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer)
|                      |  |     |  |
## In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 17

- 00097

- CV

E STATE OF M ICHAEL L YNN L UCE , D ECEASED §
§
§
§
§
§ On Appeal from
County Court at Law No. 2
of Parker County (CIV

- 16

- 0132)

November 15 , 2018
Opinion by Justice Kerr

Concurrence by Justice Meier (to foll ow)
JUDGMENT
This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there

was error in the trial court’s judgment

. W e reverse the part of the trial court’s March

7, 2017 order modifying the trial court’s December 22, 2016 judgment b y setting aside
the jury’s good

- faith

- and

- with

- just

- cause finding against Appellant/Cross

- Appellee
GayeLynne Luce and awarding her an unspecified amount of attorney’s fees. We

affirm the remainder of the trial court’s March 7, 2017 order. We reverse the tr ialcourt’s October 30 , 2017 order awarding GayeLynne Luce $199,653.66 in at torney’s
fees and expenses. W e affirm the trial court’s Octobe r 27, 2017 and October 31,

2017 orders denying Tina Poole ’s request f or attorney’s fees and expenses as the

executor d esignated in the 2015 will. We affirm the trial court’s De cember 22,

2016 judgment.

We tax appellate costs against Appellant/Cross

- Appellee GayeLynne Luce

.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By _ /s/ Elizabeth Kerr

__________________ Justice Elizabet h Kerr
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-7132
JAMES ANTHONY MAY, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. INVESTIGATOR VANLANDINGHAM; DEPUTY KOLIBEK, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:06-ct-03124-D) Submitted: September 16, 2008 Decided: September 24, 2008 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Anthony May, Appellant P ro Se. Craig Douglass Cannon, James R. Morgan, Jr., WOMBLE, CARLYLE, SANDRIDGE & RICE, PLLC, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: James Anthony May appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. May v. Vanlandingham , No. 5:06-ct-03124-D (E.D.N.C. June 3, 2008). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED
Document Headings

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

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Transportation

###### Maritime Administration 

# ACTION:

National Advisory Council Public Meeting.

# SUMMARY:

The Maritime Administration announces that the Marine Transportation System National Advisory Council (MTSNAC) will hold its first meeting to discuss the Council's role in attaining the desired MTS and formulate an initial Council Action Plan. A public comment period is scheduled for 2:45 to 3:15. To provide time for as many people to speak as possible, speaking time for each individual will be limited to three minutes. Members of the public who would like to speak are asked to contact Kathleen Dunn by May 22, 2000. Commenters will be placed on the agenda in the order in which notifications are received. If time allows, additional comments will be permitted. Oral comments must be submitted in writing at the meeting. Additional written comments are welcome and must be filed by June 8, 2000. 

# DATES:

The meeting will be held on Wednesday May 24, 2000, from 8:30 AM to 5 PM. 

# ADDRESSES:

The meeting will be held in Ballrooms A and B of the Commonwealth Ballroom of the Holiday Inn and Suites, Historic District Alexandria, 625 First Street, Alexandria, Virginia 22314. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kathleen R. Dunn, (202) 366-2307; Maritime Administration, MAR 810, Room 7209, Washington, DC 20590; Kathleen.Dunn@marad.dot.gov. 

Authority:5 U.S.C. App 2, Sec.9(a)(2); 41 CFR 101-6.1005; DOT Order 1120.3B.

Dated: May 5, 2000.

Joel C. Richard,

Secretary, Maritime Administration. 

[FR Doc. 00-11747 Filed 5-9-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910-81-P
#### § 375.70 Special authorization.

Any person desiring to navigate a foreign civil aircraft within the United States other than as specifically provided in this part may petition the Department for a special authorization to conduct the particular flight or series of flights. Such authorization may be issued only if the Department finds that the proposed operation is fully consistent with the applicable law, that the applicant's homeland grants a similar privilege with respect to operators of U.S.-registered aircraft, and that the proposed operation is in the interest of the public of the United States.
Editorial Note on Part 47
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 47 appear at 75 FR 41979, July 20, 2010.

§ 47.47 Cancellation of Certificate for export purpose. ( a ) The holder of a Certificate of Aircraft Registration, AC Form 8050-3, or the holder of an irrevocable deregistration and export request authorization recognized under the Cape Town Treaty and filed with the FAA, who wishes to cancel the Certificate of Aircraft Registration for the purpose of export must submit to the Registry— ( 1 ) A written request for cancellation of the Certificate of Aircraft Registration describing the aircraft by make, model, and serial number, and stating the U.S. registration number and the country to which the aircraft will be exported;
( 2 ) ( i ) For an aircraft not subject to the Cape Town Treaty, evidence satisfactory to the FAA that each holder of a recorded right has been satisfied or has consented to the transfer; or
( ii ) For an aircraft subject to the Cape Town Treaty, evidence satisfactory to the FAA that each holder of a recorded right established prior to the date the Treaty entered into force with respect to the United States has been satisfied or has consented to the transfer; and
( 3 ) A written certification that all registered interests ranking in priority to that of the requestor have been discharged or that the holders of such interests have consented to the cancellation for export purposes.
( b ) If the aircraft is subject to the Cape Town Treaty and an irrevocable deregistration and export request authorization has been filed with the Registry, the Registry will honor a request for cancellation only if an authorized party makes the request.
( c ) The Registry notifies the country to which the aircraft is to be exported of the cancellation.
[Amdt. 47-27, 70 FR 245, Jan. 3, 2005, as amended by Amdt. 47-29, 75 FR 41982, July 20, 2010]
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D17-4979

_____________________________

YVENS FELIX,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Alachua County.

Mark W. Moseley, Judge.

November 6, 2018

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

WOLF, WINOKUR, and JAY, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Yvens Felix, pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Barbara Debelius, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
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.

§ 21.321 Applicability. This subpart prescribes— ( a ) Procedural requirements for issuing export airworthiness approvals; and
( b ) Rules governing the holders of those approvals.
§ 293.21 Incorporation of contract terms by reference. Carriers holding an effective exemption from the duty to file tariffs under this part may incorporate contract terms by reference (*i.e.,* without stating their full text) into the passenger ticket or other document embodying the contract of carriage for the scheduled transportation of passengers in foreign air transportation, provided that: ( a ) The notice, inspection, explanation and other requirements set forth in 14 CFR 221.107, paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) are complied with, to the extent applicable;
( b ) In addition to other remedies at law, a carrier may not claim the benefit under this section as against a passenger, and a passenger shall not be bound by incorporation of any contract term by reference under this part, unless the requirements of paragraph (a), of this section are complied with, to the extent applicable; and
( c ) The purpose of this section is to set uniform disclosure requirements, which preempt any State requirements on the same subject, for incorporation of terms by reference into contracts of carriage for the scheduled transportation of passengers in foreign air transportation.
#### § 305.1 Applicability.

The provisions of this part shall govern informal nonpublic investigations, as distinguished from formal investigations and adjudicatory proceedings, undertaken by the Office of the Assistant General Counsel for Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings with a view to obtaining information from any person. While the Department seeks and encourages voluntary cooperation and believes that it is in the best interest of all parties concerned, it will utilize the procedures provided by this part to compel the disclosure of information by any person where DOT wishes to determine whether such person, or any other person, has been or is violating any provisions of 49 U.S.C. Subtitle VII, Chapter 411 or 49 U.S.C. 40102(2), 41502, 41507, 41508, 41509, 41702, 41703, or 46101, or any rule, regulation, order, certificate, permit, or letter or registration issued pursuant thereto by DOT and when the information appears to be relevant to the matter under investigation. This part shall not apply to employees or records of other agencies of the U.S. Government, the District of Columbia, or the several States and their political subdivisions.

[Docket No. 82, 50 FR 2421, Jan. 16, 1985, as amended by Doc. No. DOT-OST-2014-0140, 84 FR 15937, Apr. 16, 2019]
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein, 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.

 May 28, 2015

p0518

Order 

Clerk

May 28, 2015

149888(21)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 149888

COA: 320759

Wayne CC: 12-010134-FH

DANA ABLEIGH WEEKS, SR.,

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s February 3, 

2015 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was 

entered erroneously.
# EUR-Lex - 31995R1251 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31995R1251

**Council Regulation (EC) No 1251/95 of 29 May 1995 amending Regulation (EC) No 3283/94 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community **

*
Official Journal L 122 , 02/06/1995 P. 0001 - 0001 *

COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 1251/95 of 29 May 1995 amending Regulation (EC) No 3283/94 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 113 thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,

Whereas by Regulation (EC) No 3283/94 (1), the Council adopted rules on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community;

Whereas Articles 5 (9), 6 (9) and 7 (1) of Regulation (EC) No 3283/94 lay down time limits for the initiation of investigations pursuant to a complaint lodged under Article 5 (9) and for certain steps in the investigation; whereas however Article 24 of that Regulation provides that those time limits shall only apply after a date which the Council shall specify in a Decision once the necessary budgetary resources have been made available;

Whereas the necessary budgetary resources have now been made available to allow the Commission to adhere to those time limits; whereas it appears appropriate that the time limits should apply to proceedings initiated pursuant to complaints lodged on or after 1 September 1995;

Whereas for ease of reference it is desirable that this date should be inserted in Regulation (EC) No 3283/94; whereas therefore an amendment should be made to that Regulation rather than a Decision be adopted pursuant to Article 24 thereof,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Sole Article

The third sentence of Article 24 of Regulation (EC) No 3283/94 shall be replaced by the following:

'The time limits prescribed by Articles 5 (9), 6 (9) and 7 (1) shall apply in respect of complaints lodged pursuant to Article 5 (9) on or after 1 September 1995 and investigations initiated pursuant to such complaints.`

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 29 May 1995.

For the Council The President Ph. VASSEUR
#### § 420.43 Duration.

A license to operate a launch site remains in effect for five years from the date of issuance unless surrendered, suspended, or revoked before the expiration of the term and is renewable upon application by the licensee.
§ 31.17 Performance: Climb. ( a ) Each balloon must be capable of climbing at least 300 feet in the first minute after takeoff with a steady rate of climb. Compliance with the requirements of this section must be shown at each altitude and ambient temperature for which approval is sought.
( b ) Compliance with the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section must be shown at the maximum weight with a weight tolerance of + 5 percent.
[Amdt. 31-4, 45 FR 60179, Sept. 11, 1980]
#### South Buffalo Stores, Inc., Respondent, *v.*W. T. Grant Co., et al., Appellants.

Argued March 15, 1937;

decided April 20, 1937.

*661
      *George W. Wanamaker*for W. T. Grant Co., appellant.

*J. Edmund Kelly*for Fred A. Kreitner et al., appellants.

*Sidney B. Pfeifer, Henry Jadd*and *Sol Tully*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

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