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

Debtors.1

PROMESA 

Title III 

Case No. 17-BK-3283-LTS 

(Jointly Administered) 

NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS 

The Ad Hoc Group Of General Obligation Bondholders, which is a party in interest in the 

above-captioned Title III case, hereby gives notice of a change of contact information for certain of 

its counsel, namely Lawrence S. Robbins, Gary A. Orseck, Mark T. Stancil, Kathryn S. Zecca, Donald 

Burke, Lanora C. Pettit, and Joshua S. Bolian. Effective October 22, 2018, Messrs. Robbins, Orseck, 

Stancil, Burke, and Bolian as well as Mmes. Zecca and Pettit may be contacted and served at the 

following new address: 

Robbins, Russell, Englert, Orseck, Untereiner & Sauber LLP 

2000 K Street NW 

4th Floor 

Washington, DC 20006 

Please use this new address on all pleadings, correspondence, and other documents. 

 

1

 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). 

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:4154 Filed:11/01/18 Entered:11/01/18 18:16:14 Desc: Main

Document Page 1 of 2
2 

Respectfully submitted, 

s/ Mark T. Stancil 

Lawrence S. Robbins (pro hac vice) 

Gary A. Orseck (pro hac vice) 

Mark T. Stancil (pro hac vice) 

Kathryn S. Zecca (pro hac vice) 

Donald Burke (pro hac vice) 

Robbins, Russell, Englert, 

Orseck, Untereiner & Sauber LLP 

2000 K Street NW 

4th Floor 

Washington, DC 20006 

(202) 775-4500 

lrobbins@robbinsrussell.com 

gorseck@robbinsrussell.com 

mstancil@robbinsrussell.com 

kzecca@robbinsrussell.com 

dburke@robbinsrussell.com 

Attorneys for Creditor Ad Hoc Group 

of General Obligation Bondholders

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:4154 Filed:11/01/18 Entered:11/01/18 18:16:14 Desc: Main

Document Page 2 of 2
#### In the Matter of The Standard Gas Light Company of the City of New York, Appellant, against Frank J. Taylor, as Comptroller of the City of New York, et al., Respondents.

Argued October 15, 1936;

decided November 17, 1936.)

*612
      *Joseph M. Proskauer, Robert E. Coulson, Thomas H. Beardsley, Forbes D. Shaw*and *J. Alvin Van Bergh*for appellant.

*Paul Windels, Corporation Counsel (Oscar S. Cox, Sol Charles Levine*and *Meyer Bernstein*of counsel), for respondents.

Order affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs, Crouch, Loughran and Finch, JJ.
#### Don McCORKLE *v.*Billy Russell JEFFERSON, Jr

5-5824

478 S.W. 2d 47

Opinion delivered March 27, 1972

*Griffin Smith,*for appellant.

*Eubanks, Files ir Hurley,*for appellee.

Lyle Brown, Justice.

This is an action in slander brought by appellee and he recovered judgment for $1,000. For reversal appellant contends that the undisputed facts show the statement charging appellee with theft was justified.

Here is a summary of the testimony given by appellee. At the time of the incident he was a student at the University School of Pharmacy in Little Rock. He was employed on Saturdays and Sundays as a clerk at Markham Inn, a motel. Appellant was president of Markham Inn. It was not unusual for employees to draw against their anticipated salary but not more than they would earn during that pay period. Appellee had many times drawn against his salary — $5.00 or $10.00 — by placing his “IOU” in the cash register. On Friday evening, February 7, 1969, appellee went to Markham Inn and with the consent of the night clerk, withdrew ten dollars from the cash register and placed therein an IOU for that amount after initialing it. Appellee was due to report for work early the next morning but he overslept because the night clerk failed to telephone him. When *205appellee awoke he telephoned Markham Inn to explain that he would be late and to his surprise a new man was on duty. From the conversation between appellee and the new clerk appellee learned that he had been discharged. Appellee went home to borrow some money and when he returned on Sunday he checked his mail box at the university student housing and found this message addressed to him: “Don McCorkle at the Markham Inn called me about an urgent emergency. ‘You have stole $10.00 from his register.’ He says you are to return it immediately or Monday morning he will contact the Medical Center and the police.”

Miss Campbell, the desk clerk at the student housing complex, testified that she took the message over the telephone from a man who identified himself as Don McCorkle, that she put the message in appellee’s box and notified her superior who approved the action.

Appellant testified in his own behalf. He conceded that the message given appellee was correct. He defended his actions on the ground that he had informed appellee on the Sunday preceding the withdrawal of the ten dollars that he was discharged; that he was therefore not an employee at the time he took the money and consequently had no more right than a stranger to withdraw the money. Appellant denied ever having authorized withdrawals from the register by employees.

Of course under the law we are bound by the verdict of the judge sitting as a jury if there is substantial evidence to support the judgment. The evidence proffered by appellee is substantial and we are not permitted to disturb the finding.

Affirmed.

Byrd, J., not participating.
Richard /s

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

November 18, 2013

No. 04-13-00007-CV

WOODLAKE MANAGEMENT SERVICES L.L.C., John Augustin Butuza,

Appellants

v.

Richard J. BONJORNO and Judy C. Bonjorno Revocable Trust, Dated June 9, 1983 and 

Richard Bonjorno,

Appellees

From the 288th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2007-CI-13311

Honorable Laura Salinas, Judge Presiding

ORDER

The Appellee’s Motion for Extension of time to respond to Motion for Rehearing is 

GRANTED. The appellee’s response is due on November 25, 2013.

_________________________________

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 18th day of November, 2013.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
#### § 234.12 Waivers.

Any carrier may request a waiver from the reporting requirements of this part. Such a request, at the discretion of the Director, Bureau of Transportation Statistics may be granted for good cause shown. The requesting party shall state the basis for such a waiver.

[Doc. No. 48524, 59 FR 49798, Sept. 30, 1994, as amended at 60 FR 66722, Dec. 26, 1995]
#### § 381.5 Definition.

*Special Event Tour* means a tour that is organized for the purpose of attending a sporting, social, religious, educational, cultural, political or other event of a special nature and limited duration, which exists for reasons apart from the tour itself, and which is represented by the operator of the tour as including admission to that event. Examples of such events include, but are not limited to, college and professional sporting events, the Olympics, concerts, the Passion Play in Oberammergau, etc.
§ 145.155 Inspection personnel requirements. ( a ) A certificated repair station must ensure that persons performing inspections under the repair station certificate and operations specifications are— ( 1 ) Thoroughly familiar with the applicable regulations in this chapter and with the inspection methods, techniques, practices, aids, equipment, and tools used to determine the airworthiness of the article on which maintenance, preventive maintenance, or alterations are being performed; and
( 2 ) Proficient in using the various types of inspection equipment and visual inspection aids appropriate for the article being inspected.
( b ) A certificated repair station must ensure its inspectors understand, read, and write English.
[Doc. No. FAA-1999-5836, 66 FR 41117, Aug. 6, 2001, as amended by Amdt. 145-30, 79 FR 46985, Aug. 12, 2014]
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4552 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4552

 Making emergency supplemental appropriations for disaster relief for 
   the fiscal year ending September 30, 2020, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 9, 2020

  Mr. Kennedy introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
              referred to the Committee on Appropriations

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 Making emergency supplemental appropriations for disaster relief for 
   the fiscal year ending September 30, 2020, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
That the following sums in this Act are appropriated, out of any money 
in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the fiscal year ending 
September 30, 2020, and for other purposes, namely:

                    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

            PROTECTION, PREPAREDNESS, RESPONSE, AND RECOVERY

                  Federal Emergency Management Agency

                          disaster relief fund

                     (including transfer of funds)

    For an additional amount for ``Disaster Relief Fund'' 
$10,000,000,000, to remain available until expended:  Provided, That 
the amount provided herein is designated by the Congress as being for 
an emergency requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A)(i) of the 
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 
901(b)(2)(A)(i)).
    This Act may be cited as the ``Hurricane Laura Recovery Funding 
Act, 2020''.
                                 <all>
```
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R.

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-50104

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

CHARLES DOUGLAS BOYENS,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. EP-96-CR-532-H

- - - - - - - - - -

April 30, 1998

Before JONES, SMITH, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Charles Douglas Boyens appeals his guilty-plea conviction

for one count of felon in possession of a firearm, in violation

of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). Boyens argues that the district court

erred in denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. He has

failed to meet his burden to establish a fair and just reason for

the withdrawal of his guilty plea. See United States v. Carr,

740 F.2d 339, 343-44 (5th Cir. 1984). The record of Boyens’

guilty-plea hearing shows that his guilty plea was knowing and
No. 97-50104 

-2-

voluntary. See United States v. Abreo, 30 F.3d 29, 31 (5th Cir.

1994) (testimony in open court is entitled to a strong

presumption of verity). We have reviewed the record and the

briefs of the parties and affirm substantially for the reasons

given by the district court. See United States v. Boyens,

EP-96-CR-532-H (W.D. Tex. Jan. 29, 1997). Although, based on

Boyens’ letter to the court stating that he wanted to go to trial

but was having trouble communicating with his attorney, we do not

agree with the district court’s finding that Boyens delayed 24

days before filing his motion to withdraw, this does not alter

our determination that under the totality of the circumstances

Boyens has not shown that the district court abused its

discretion in denying the motion to withdraw his guilty plea. 

United States v. Hurtado, 846 F.2d 995, 997 (5th Cir. 1988). 

AFFIRMED.
Opinion issued March 12, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The

First District of Texas 

NO. 01-12-00609-CV

TONYA LASSELA JACKSON, Appellant

V.

ANTHONY EUGENE WILLIAMS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 387th District Court

Fort Bend County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 04-DCV-139207

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Tonya Lassela Jackson has failed to timely file a brief. See TEX.

R. APP. P. 38.6(a) (governing time to file brief), 38.8(a) (governing failure of 
2

appellant to file brief). After being notified that this appeal was subject to 

dismissal, appellant did not respond. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(b) (allowing 

involuntary dismissal of case).

We dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution for failure to timely file a brief. 

We dismiss any pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Sharp, and Huddle.
#### § 300.10 Motions to disqualify DOT employee in review of hearing matters.

In cases to be determined on an evidentiary record, a party desiring that a concerned DOT employee disqualify himself or herself from participating in a DOT decision shall file a motion supported by an affidavit setting forth the grounds for such disqualification in the form and within the periods prescribed in § 302.11 of this chapter. Where review of the administrative law judge's decision can be obtained only upon the filing of a petition for discretionary review, such motions must be filed on or before the date answers are due pursuant to § 302.32. In cases where exceptions are filed to recommended, initial, or tentative decisions or where the DOT decisionmaker orders review of an initial or recommended decision on his or her own initiative, such motions must be filed on or before the date briefs are due pursuant to § 302.35 or § 302.218, as applicable. Failure to file a timely motion will be deemed a waiver of disqualification. Applications for leave to file an untimely motion seeking disqualification of a concerned DOT employee must be accompanied by an affidavit setting forth in detail why the facts relied upon as grounds for disqualification were not known and could not have been discovered with reasonable diligence within the prescribed time.

[Doc. No. OST-97-2090, 65 FR 6456, Feb. 9, 2000. Redesignated and amended by Doc. No. DOT-OST-2014-0140, 84 FR 15935, Apr. 16, 2019]
§ 25.875 Reinforcement near propellers. ( a ) Each part of the airplane near the propeller tips must be strong and stiff enough to withstand the effects of the induced vibration and of ice thrown from the propeller.
( b ) No window may be near the propeller tips unless it can withstand the most severe ice impact likely to occur.
§ 33.64 Pressurized engine static parts. ( a ) Strength. The applicant must establish by test, validated analysis, or a combination of both, that all static parts subject to significant gas or liquid pressure loads for a stabilized period of one minute will not: ( 1 ) Exhibit permanent distortion beyond serviceable limits or exhibit leakage that could create a hazardous condition when subjected to the greater of the following pressures: ( i ) 1.1 times the maximum working pressure;
( ii ) 1.33 times the normal working pressure; or
( iii ) 35 kPa (5 p.s.i.) above the normal working pressure.
( 2 ) Exhibit fracture or burst when subjected to the greater of the following pressures: ( i ) 1.15 times the maximum possible pressure;
( ii ) 1.5 times the maximum working pressure; or
( iii ) 35 kPa (5 p.s.i.) above the maximum possible pressure.
( b ) Compliance with this section must take into account: ( 1 ) The operating temperature of the part;
( 2 ) Any other significant static loads in addition to pressure loads;
( 3 ) Minimum properties representative of both the material and the processes used in the construction of the part; and
( 4 ) Any adverse geometry conditions allowed by the type design.
[Amdt. 33-27; 73 FR 55437, Sept. 25, 2008; Amdt. 33-27, 73 FR 57235, Oct. 2, 2008]
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-6989

ROBERT JERRY SMITH, JR.,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

WILLIAM D. CATOE, Director of South Carolina

Department of Corrections,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Charleston. Matthew J. Perry, Jr., Senior

District Judge. (CA-00-2983-9-10)

Submitted: November 21, 2002 Decided: December 2, 2002

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Jerry Smith, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Charles Molony Condon,

Attorney General, William Edgar Salter, III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY

GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Robert Jerry Smith, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a habeas corpus

proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate

of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of

appealability will not issue for claims addressed by a district

court on the merits absent “a substantial showing of the denial of

a constitutional” right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (2000). As to claims

dismissed by a district court solely on procedural grounds, a

certificate of appealability will not issue unless the petitioner

can demonstrate both “(1) ‘that jurists of reason would find it

debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial

of a constitutional right and (2) ‘that jurists of reason would

find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its

procedural ruling.’” Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 684 (4th Cir. 2001)

(quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). We have

reviewed the record and conclude for the reasons stated by the

district court that Smith has not satisfied either standard. See

Smith v. Catoe, No. CA-00-2983-9-10 (D.S.C. May 29, 2002).

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the

appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### § 33.69 Ignitions system.

Each engine must be equipped with an ignition system for starting the engine on the ground and in flight. An electric ignition system must have at least two igniters and two separate secondary electric circuits, except that only one igniter is required for fuel burning augmentation systems.

[Amdt. 33-6, 39 FR 35466, Oct. 1, 1974]
#### In the Matter of the Will of Martha M. Hall, Deceased. Henry J. S. Hall Appellant; James J. Morgan et al., as Executors of and Trustees under the Will of Martha M. Hall, Deceased, et al., Respondents.

(Argued May 27, 1936;

decided July 8, 1936.)

*429
      *Nathan L. Miller, Harold Otis, Harry Sammet*and *William FitzGibbon*for appellant.

*John W. Davis, Otis T. Bradley, Harold M. Hoffman*and *Mitchell Salem Fisher*for James J. Morgan et al., as executors and trustees, respondents.

*John J. Bennett, Jr., Attorney-General (Robert P. Beyer*of counsel), for unknown beneficiaries of trust provision.

Order affirmed, with costs to all parties appearing and filing briefs payable out of the estate. No opinion.

Concur: Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs, Crouch, Lough-ran and Finch, JJ. Dissenting: Crane, Ch. J.
SCWC-13-0000382 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI # I

STATE OF HAWAI # I, Petitioner/Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs. RICHARD P. SILVA, III, Respondent/Defendant-Appellant.

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS (CAAP-13-0000382; CR. NO. 11-1-0926) ORDER REJECTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI (By: Reck tenwald, C.J., Nak ayama, Mc Kenna, Po llack, an d Wilson, JJ.)

Petitioner/Plaintiff-Appellee State of Hawaii’s application for writ of certiorari filed on January 8, 2015, is hereby rejected.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai # i, February 19, 2015. Brian R. Vincent for petitioner /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Richard W. Pollack /s/ Michael D. Wilson Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCWC-13-0000382 19-FEB-2015 08:19 AM
STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

STATE OF LOUISIANA

VERSUS

PHILIPPE VEETERS

NO. 2022 KW 0467

MAY 05, 2022

In Re: State of Louisiana, applying for supervisory writs, 

19th Judicial District Court, Parish of East Baton

Rouge, No. DC - 19- 07235. 

BEFORE: GUIDRY, HOLDRIDGE, AND CHUTZ, JJ. 

STAY DENIED. WRIT GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The

trial court' s order is modified to provide that the subpoenas

duces tecum issued for the listed records of the victims named

in the bill of information for the period of June 6, 2018 to the

present be produced for in camera inspection by the trial court. 

In all other respects, the writ application is denied. 

JMG

GH

WRC

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

Uk

DEPUTY CL RK OF COURT

FOR THE COURT