alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, August 09, 2017. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, August 09, 2017 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A17A1806. GONZALAS WILLIS v. CDL TRAINING SERVICE OF MISSOURI, LLC d /b/a MTC.
The appellant in this case failed to comply with the notice of docketing mailed by this Court and with Court of Appeals Rules 22 (a) and 23 (a), regarding the filing of an enumeration of errors and brief within twenty days after the appeal was docketed. See also Court of Appeals Rule 13. On July 05, 2017, this Court ordered the appellant to file an enumeration of errors and a brief no later than July 13, 2017. As of the date of this order, the appellant's enumeration of errors and brief still have not been filed. Accordingly, this appeal is deemed abandoned and is hereby ordered DISMISSED. Court of Appeals Rules 7, 23 (a).
§ 297.10 Exemption from the Statute. ( a ) Foreign indirect air carriers with an effective registration under this part are exempted from the following provisions of 49 U.S.C. Subtitle VII only if and so long as they comply with the provisions of this part and the conditions imposed herein, and to the extent necessary to permit them to arrange their air freight shipments: ( 1 ) Section 41302 (Permits);
( 2 ) Sections 41504 and 41510(a) (Tariffs);
( 3 ) Section 41510(b) (Solicitation of rebates) to the extent necessary to permit them to solicit, accept, or receive fees from direct air carriers;
( 4 ) Section 41501 (Carrier's duty to establish just and reasonable rates, etc.); and
( 5 ) If awarded interstate air transportation operating rights, any other provision of 49 U.S.C. Subtitle VII that would otherwise prohibit them from engaging in the interstate indirect air transportation of property.
( 6 ) Section 41310 (nondiscrimination) with respect to interstate and overseas air transportation.
( b ) Direct air carriers are exempted from Chapter 415 of 49 U.S.C. Subtitle VII to the extent necessary to permit them to pay, directly or indirectly, fees to foreign air freight forwarders and foreign cooperative shippers associations on consolidated shipments.
[ER-1336, 48 FR 22705, May 20, 1983, as amended by ER-1382, 49 FR 25226, June 20, 1984; Doc. No. 47939, 57 FR 40103, Sept. 2, 1992; 60 FR 43527, Aug. 22, 1995; DOT-OST-2014-0140, 84 FR 15934, Apr. 16, 2019]
§ 35.3 Instructions for propeller installation and operation. The applicant must provide instructions that are approved by the Administrator. Those approved instructions must contain: ( a ) Instructions for installing the propeller, which: ( 1 ) Include a description of the operational modes of the propeller control system and functional interface of the control system with the airplane and engine systems;
( 2 ) Specify the physical and functional interfaces with the airplane, airplane equipment and engine;
( 3 ) Define the limiting conditions on the interfaces from paragraph (a)(2) of this section;
( 4 ) List the limitations established under § 35.5;
( 5 ) Define the hydraulic fluids approved for use with the propeller, including grade and specification, related operating pressure, and filtration levels; and
( 6 ) State the assumptions made to comply with the requirements of this part.
( b ) Instructions for operating the propeller which must specify all procedures necessary for operating the propeller within the limitations of the propeller type design.
[Amdt. 35-8, 73 FR 63346, Oct. 24, 2008]
§ 223.2 Exemption from 49 U.S.C. 41102. ( a ) Any all-cargo carrier is exempted from 49 U.S.C. 41102 to the extent necessary to carry, for purposes of in-flight observation, technical representatives of companies that have been engaged in the manufacture, development, or testing of aircraft or aircraft equipment.
( b ) Every carrier providing transportation under this section shall also comply with the applicable regulations of the Federal Aviation Administration such as regulations pertaining to admission of persons to the aircraft flight deck.
[ER-1371, 48 FR 57118, Dec. 28, 1983, as amended by Doc. No. DOT-OST-2014-0140, 84 FR 15930, Apr. 16, 2019]
## ews Co. BUREAU OF AIR QUALITY MS. YVETTE 

## M. HOUSE DiVISION OF AIR RESOURCES MGMG P.O. BOX 8468,400 MARKET ST., 12TH FLOOR HARRISBURG

PA 17105 PCCT# ADOROER# IE 

## 2I ADDITIONAL INFO. TYPE OF CHARGE

AMOUNT 

# .1 Commonwealth

of Pennsylvania CountS’ of Dauphin 

## Proof of Publication 12 Market St. burg, PA17101 iuiries

- 

## 717-255-8292 

# liMe atfloHiews Now you

know REMITTANCE ADDRESS The Patriot-News Co. 23794 Network P1 Chicago, IL 60673-1237 30235 0001836530 04111/08 DA BASIC AD CHARGE

151 $4.57 $690.07 30235 0001836530 04111/08 DA
BOLD TEXT CHARGEc $4.00 30235 0001836530 04/11/08 DA ONLINE CHARGE

$2.50.
AFFiDAVIT CHARGE $5.00 • TOTAL:

$701.57 

## Before me, the subscriber,
A Notary PUbliC in and for said County, personally came Joseph A. Dennison who being duly sworn, doth depose and say that he is Assistant Controller of the Patriot-News Co., a general newspaper published at Harrisburg, PA, that the advertisement,
of which tearsheet
is attached hereto, was published in the regular advertising columns of said newspaj&,
in the editions ofsaid newspaper,

in 

## all respects as oftiered and invoiced above; and that the Commonwealth

is not charged .therefor at a rate hiher than,is charged: any ordinary commercial advertiser for a similar amount of matter occupying similar space and set in a lmilar manner, in said newspaper. COMMONWEALTh

OF PENNSYLVAN 

# rSe1 SheTi8 L Kisner, Nofafy PUblic 

## I CHP’nCO Member, PennSY)Vfli5

Association of NotariesOATH of PUBLICATION In THE ERIE TIMES-NEWS COMBINATION EDITION +—- TOTAL COST FILED ON: BUREAU OF AIR QUALITY PA DEPT ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECT DIV. OF ARM 400 MARKET ST HARRISBURG PA 17101—2301 REFERENCE: L0001725 0000875237 ENVIRONMENTALQUALITY STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA> COUNTY OF ERIE

) SS: Rosanne. Cheeseman being duly sworn, deposes and says that she is the Publisher of the Times Publishing Company, which publishes: the

1 Erie Times—News, established October 2,2000,

a

I daily newspaper of general circulation, successor, by consolidation,
of the Morning News, established

I January 1957, and

I the Erie Daily Times, established April l888, daily newspapers of general circulation and

I published at Erie, Erie County, Pennsylvania, and

I that the notice of which the attached is a copy

I published, in the regular editions of said newspaper of the dates referred to below.

I Affiant further deposes that she is duly

I authorized by the TIMES PUBLISHING COMPANY, publisher of The Erie Times—News to verify the foregoing statement under oath,and affiant is noti interested in the subject matter of the aforesaid

I notice or advertisement, and that all allegations

I in the forgoing statement as to time, place and

I character of publication are true. PUBLISHED ON: 04/li 552.72

AD SPACE: 204 LINEI 04/11/08

I + Sworn to and sub ribe3 before me this NOTAPA 4 fM.L€4L( 2 f/EM1 t OMMONWEALTh
OF PENNSYLVA1A 

# / Notarial Seal Laure4ieA. Daughety, Notaiy Public CftyOfEtle,ErleCounty My Common Expires Nov. 5.2009 Member, Pennsylvania Assolatlon of Notaries
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 89 (Monday, May 8, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 26583]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-11468]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration


Applications for Duty-Free Entry of Scientific Instruments

    Pursuant to Section 6(c) of the Educational, Scientific and 
Cultural Materials Importation Act of 1966 (Pub. L. 89-651; 80 Stat. 
897; 15 CFR part 301), we invite comments on the question of whether 
instruments of equivalent scientific value, for the purposes for which 
the instruments shown below are intended to be used, are being 
manufactured in the United States.
    Comments must comply with 15 CFR 301.5(a)(3) and (4) of the 
regulations and be filed within 20 days with the Statutory Import 
Programs Staff, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C. 20230. 
Applications may be examined between 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. in Room 
4211, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, 
N.W., Washington, D.C.
    Docket Number: 00-011. Applicant: University of Michigan, 930 N. 
University Avenue, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1055. Instrument: Electron Beam 
Evaporator, Model EGN4. Manufacturer: Oxford Applied Research, United 
Kingdom. Intended Use: The instrument is intended to be used for 
studies of how various materials interact with thin metal films. 
Application accepted by Commissioner of Customs: April 21, 2000.
    Docket Number: 00-013. Applicant: Allegheny-Singer Research 
Institute, 320 East North Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15212-4772. 
Instrument: Robot and Microplate Manipulator, Model Q-Bot. 
Manufacturer: Genetix Limited, United Kingdom. Intended Use: The 
instrument is intended to be used to prepare addressable libraries of 
DNA clones (both genomic and cDNA) for comparative gene expression 
studies (the basis of the science of functional genomics) to understand 
the differences between normal physiologic processes. The instrument 
will also be used for educational objectives through teaching trainees 
in the most current means to comparatively evaluate differences in gene 
expression. Application accepted by Commissioner of Customs: April 21, 
2000.

Frank W. Creel,
Director, Statutory Import Programs Staff.
[FR Doc. 00-11468 Filed 5-5-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
EXHIBIT 32

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 on Form 10-Q of Arch Chemicals, Inc., a Virginia corporation (the Company), for the period ending September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned officers 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, to such
officers knowledge, 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 as of and for the periods
presented in the Report.
|-- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The foregoing certification is provided solely for purposes of complying with the provisions of Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and is not intended to be used or relied upon for any other purpose.



|                        |  |                                            
|----------------------- |  | -------------------------------------------
|Dated: October 31, 2006 |  | /s/ Michael E. Campbell                    
|                        |  | Michael E. Campbell Chief Executive
Officer
|                        | 
|Dated: October 31, 2006 |  | /s/ Louis S. Massimo                       
|                        |  | Louis S. Massimo Chief Financial
Officer   

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Arch Chemicals, Inc.
and will be retained by Arch Chemicals, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

In Re: ANITRA BANKS MASSEY, 

Debtor.

ANITRA BANKS MASSEY, a/k/a Anitra

Sharmeen Banks,

Plaintiff-Appellant.

 No. 01-1426 ROBERT E. HYMAN, U. S. Trustee;

GREGG R. NIVALA, U. S. Trustee;

HENRICO FEDERAL CREDIT UNION,

Parties in Interest,

and

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CONSUMER

BANKRUPTCY ATTORNEYS,

Amicus Curiae. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond.

James R. Spencer, District Judge.

(CA-00-755-3, BK-00-33272)

Submitted: August 31, 2001

Decided: October 17, 2001

Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 
COUNSEL

Charles H. Krumbein, Jason M. Krumbein, CHARLES H. KRUMBEIN & ASSOCIATES, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. John

Rao, Elizabeth Renuart, NATIONAL CONSUMER LAW CENTER,

INC., Boston, Massachusetts, for Amicus Curiae.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c). 

OPINION

PER CURIAM: 

Anitra Banks Massey appeals from the district court order affirming the order of the bankruptcy court denying confirmation of her proposed Chapter 13 bankruptcy plan and continuing the case to allow

Massey to file an amended plan. We dismiss the appeal for lack of

jurisdiction because the order is not appealable. 

District courts have jurisdiction over appeals from final orders

entered by bankruptcy courts. See 28 U.S.C.A. § 158(a) (West Supp.

2001). The courts of appeals, in turn, have jurisdiction to hear appeals

from "final decisions, judgments, orders, and decrees entered under"

28 U.S.C.A. § 158(a). 28 U.S.C.A. § 158(d) (West 1993). "A final

decision generally is one which ends the litigation on the merits and

leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment." Catlin

v. United States, 324 U.S. 229, 233 (1945) (internal quotation marks

omitted). 

An order denying confirmation of a proposed Chapter 13 plan,

without also dismissing the underlying petition or proceeding, is not

final for purposes of appeal. Lewis v. United States, Farmers Home

Admin., 992 F.2d 767, 772-73 (8th Cir. 1993); In re Szekely, 936 F.2d

897, 899 (7th Cir. 1991); In re Simons, 908 F.2d 643, 644-45 (10th

Cir. 1990). Because the bankruptcy court’s order denying confirma2 IN RE: MASSEY
tion and continuing the case was not a final order under § 158(a), the

district court was without jurisdiction to hear the appeal. 28 U.S.C.A.

§ 158(a). Moreover, because the courts of appeals have jurisdiction

over appeals from final orders entered under § 158(a), and the district

court order herein appealed was not a final order entered under

§ 158(a), this court lacks jurisdiction over the appeal. See 28 U.S.C.A.

§ 158(d); Lewis, 992 F.2d at 773; Szekely, 936 F.2d at 899; Simons,

908 F.2d at 644-45. 

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal as interlocutory. 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.

DISMISSED

IN RE: MASSEY 3
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Yigal Bosch v. Frost National Bank

Appellate case number: 01-14-00191-CV

Trial court case number: 2009-63337

Trial court: 133rd District Court of Harris County

On April 4, 2014, Appellant Yigal Bosch filed a Motion to Use Clerk’s Records in Case 

01-13-00190-CV. 

The motion is GRANTED. The Clerk of this Court is instructed to transfer the trial court 

record from appellate cause number 01-13-00190-CV to 01-13-00191-CV. Appellant is 

responsible for obtaining any additions to the trial clerk’s record not already included in 01-13-

00190-CV.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Harvey Brown

X Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: April 17, 2014
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, July 30, 2024.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, July 30, 2024

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A24D0408. GENE LAW, III, v. SHERIFF THEODORE "TED” JACKSON et al.

Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby DENIED.

LC NUMBERS:

2020CV341121
Case:17-03283-LTS   Doc#:420   Filed:06/22/17   Entered:06/22/17 11:14:04    Desc: MainDocument     Page 1 of 6

Case:17-03283-LTS   Doc#:420   Filed:06/22/17   Entered:06/22/17 11:14:04    Desc: MainDocument     Page 2 of 6

Case:17-03283-LTS   Doc#:420   Filed:06/22/17   Entered:06/22/17 11:14:04    Desc: MainDocument     Page 3 of 6

Case:17-03283-LTS   Doc#:420   Filed:06/22/17   Entered:06/22/17 11:14:04    Desc: MainDocument     Page 4 of 6

Case:17-03283-LTS   Doc#:420   Filed:06/22/17   Entered:06/22/17 11:14:04    Desc: MainDocument     Page 5 of 6

Case:17-03283-LTS   Doc#:420   Filed:06/22/17   Entered:06/22/17 11:14:04    Desc: MainDocument     Page 6 of 6
§ 382.55 May carriers impose security screening procedures for passengers with disabilities that go beyond TSA requirements or those of foreign governments? ( a ) All passengers, including those with disabilities, are subject to TSA security screening requirements at U.S. airports. In addition, passengers at foreign airports, including those with disabilities, may be subject to security screening measures required by law of the country in which the airport is located.
( b ) If, as a carrier, you impose security screening procedures for passengers with disabilities that go beyond those mandated by TSA (or, at a foreign airport, beyond the law of the country in which the airport is located), you must ensure that they meet the following requirements: ( 1 ) You must use the same criteria for applying security screening procedures to passengers with disabilities as to other passengers.
( 2 ) You must not subject a passenger with a disability to special screening procedures because the person is traveling with a mobility aid or other assistive device if the person using the aid or device clears the security system without activating it. ( i ) However, your security personnel may examine a mobility aid or assistive device which, in their judgment, may conceal a weapon or other prohibited item.
( ii ) You may conduct security searches of qualified individuals with a disability whose aids activate the security system in the same manner as for other passengers.
( 3 ) You must not require private security screenings of passengers with a disability to a greater extent, or for any different reason, than for other passengers.
( c ) Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, if a passenger with a disability requests a private screening in a timely manner, you must provide it in time for the passenger to enplane.
( d ) If you use technology that can conduct an appropriate screening of a passenger with a disability without necessitating a physical search of the person, you are not required to provide a private screening.
[Doc. No. DOT-OST-2004-19482, 73 FR 27665, May 13, 2008, as amended at 74 FR 11471, Mar. 18, 2009]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                       5,807,233
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  138,677
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,945,910
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,945,910
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          505,055
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,440,855
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,945,910
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4402 

To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to clarify certain activities 

that would have been authorized under Nationwide Permit 12 and other 

Nationwide Permits, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

AUGUST 3, 2020 

Mr. CORNYN (for himself, Mr. BARRASSO, Mrs. CAPITO, Mr. CRAMER, Mr. 

CRUZ, Mr. DAINES, Mr. HOEVEN, Mr. INHOFE, Mr. LANKFORD, Ms. 

MURKOWSKI, and Mr. TILLIS) introduced the following bill; which was 

read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public 

Works 

A BILL 

To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to clarify 

certain activities that would have been authorized under 

Nationwide Permit 12 and other Nationwide Permits, 

and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. ACTIVITIES UNDER NATIONWIDE PERMIT 12 

4 AND OTHER NATIONWIDE PERMITS. 

5 Section 404(e) of the Federal Water Pollution Con6 trol Act (33 U.S.C. 1344(e)) is amended by adding at the 

7 end the following: 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 4402 IS

1 ‘‘(3) AUTHORIZED ACTIVITIES.— 

2 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Subject to subpara3 graph (B) and notwithstanding the consultation 

4 requirements under section 7 of the Endan5 gered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1536), 

6 each activity authorized by the Secretary under 

7 the Nationwide Permits, as reissued in the final 

8 rule of the Secretary entitled ‘Issuance and 

9 Reissuance of Nationwide Permits’ (82 Fed. 

10 Reg. 1860 (January 6, 2017)), and any subse11 quent reissuances of the Nationwide Permits, 

12 shall be considered authorized if— 

13 ‘‘(i) the Secretary and the non-Fed14 eral applicant seeking to carry out the ac15 tivity comply with all other applicable Na16 tionwide Permit requirements; and 

17 ‘‘(ii) for activities for which the sub18 mission of a pre-construction notification is 

19 required pursuant to general condition 18, 

20 as described in the final rule or any subse21 quent reissuance of the Nationwide Per22 mits, the Secretary— 

23 ‘‘(I) makes a written determina24 tion that the activity will have no ef25 fect on— 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 4402 IS

1 ‘‘(aa) a species listed as a 

2 threatened species or an endan3 gered species under section 4 of 

4 that Act (16 U.S.C. 1533); or 

5 ‘‘(bb) land designated as a 

6 critical habitat under that Act 

7 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.); or 

8 ‘‘(II) documents that the Sec9 retary relied on and incorporated all 

10 applicable species- and activity-specific 

11 conditions and measures determined 

12 to be appropriate by the Secretary 

13 from any consultation carried out 

14 under section 7 of that Act (16 

15 U.S.C. 1536). 

16 ‘‘(B) TERMINATION.—The authority pro17 vided under this paragraph terminates on 

18 March 18, 2026.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS