alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### FRANK P. DELAHANTY v. THE UNITED STATES

[No. 42517.

Decided April 8, 1935]

*Mr. Rees B. Gillespie*for the plaintiff.'

*Miss Stella Akin,*with whom was *Mr. Assistant Attorney General George C. Sweeney,*for the defendant.

*370Williams, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court:

This suit is brought by a lieutenant of the staff corps of the United States Navy for the difference in pay between the third period and the fourth period, from June 30, 1931, to July 1, 1934. The claim is based on the following provision of the act of June 10,1922, 42 Stat. 625:

> “ The pay of the fourth period shall be paid to * * * lieutenants of the staff corps of the-Navy * * * whose total commissioned service equals, that of lieutenant commanders of the line .of the Navy drawing the pay of this period.”

The plaintiff compares his total commissioned service on June 30, 1931, with the total commissioned service of Lieutenant Commander Frank C. Fake, U. S. Navy, who during the period involved received the pay and allowances of the fourth period. The sole issue is whether the plaintiff’s total commissioned service as an officer equalled that of Lieutenant Commander Fake on June 30,1931.

The Navy Department in response to a call issued by the court, certified.that the plaintiff’s commissioned service as an officer on June 30, 1931, aggregated eleven 'years, five months, and twelve days, and that Lieutenant Commander Fake had on that date commissioned service, aggregating eleven years four months and twenty-eight days. The certificate.of the Navy Department is the only evidence in the record bearing on the commissioned service of either the plaintiff or Lieutenant Commander Fake.

Since the plaintiff’s total commissioned service on June 30, 1931, not only equalled but exceeded the commissioned *371service of Lieutenant Commander Fake on that date, the plaintiff under the plain provisions of the statute above stated was entitled to the pay and allowances of the fourth period from June 30, 1931, to July 1, 1934. The difference between the pay and allowances received by plaintiff and the pay and allowances of the fourth period which he was entitled to receive, as computed by the Comptroller General, is $3,256.14.

’ Judgment is therefore awarded plaintiff in the sum of $3,256.14. It is so ordered. ......

Whalex, *Judge;*LittletoN, *■Jvtdge;*GeeeN, *Judge;*and Booth, *Chief*Justice, concur. ■
§ 135.338 Qualifications: Flight instructors. ( a ) For the purposes of this part: ( 1 ) A flight instructor (aircraft) is a person who is qualified to instruct in an aircraft for a particular type, class, or category aircraft.
( 2 ) A flight instructor (FSTD) is a person who is qualified to instruct only in an FSTD for a particular type, class, or category aircraft.
( 3 ) Flight instructors are those instructors who perform the functions described in §§ 135.321(a) and 135.323(a)(4) and (c).
( b ) No certificate holder may use a person, nor may any person serve as a flight instructor in a training program established under this subpart unless, with respect to the type, class, or category aircraft involved, that person— ( 1 ) Holds the pilot certificates and ratings required to serve as a pilot in command in operations under this part;
( 2 ) Has satisfactorily completed the appropriate training phases for the aircraft, including recurrent training, that are required to serve as a pilot in command in operations under this part;
( 3 ) Has satisfactorily completed the proficiency or competency checks that are required to serve as a pilot in command in operations under this part;
( 4 ) Has satisfactorily completed the applicable training requirements of § 135.340.
( c ) Completion of the requirements in paragraphs (b)(2), (3), and (4) of this section shall be entered in the individual's training record maintained by the certificate holder.
( d ) A flight instructor (FSTD) must accomplish the following— ( 1 ) Fly at least two flight segments as a required crewmember for the type, class, or category aircraft involved within the 12-month period preceding the performance of any flight instructor duty in an FSTD; or
( 2 ) Satisfactorily complete an approved line-observation program within the period prescribed by that program preceding the performance of any flight instructor duty in an FSTD.
( e ) The flight segments or line-observation program required in paragraph (d) of this section are considered completed in the month required if completed in the calendar month before, or in the calendar month after, the month in which they are due.
( f ) A person who serves as a required flightcrew member while performing flight instructor duties must also meet the requirements of this chapter for the duty position in which they are serving.
[Docket No. FAA-2019-0360; Amdt. No. 135-145, 89 FR 51431, June 18, 2024]
EXHIBIT 99.4

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)

The  undersigned,  David Guarino,  Chief Financial  Officer of Kahala Corp. (the
"Company"),  has executed this  certification in connection with the filing with
the Securities and Exchange Commission of the Company's Quarterly Report on Form
10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2002 (the "Report").  The undersigned
hereby certifies that:

     1.   The Report fully complies with the applicable  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.

IN WITNESS  WHEREOF,  the undersigned has executed this  certification as of the
14th day of November, 2002.

/s/ David Guarino
----------------------------------
Chief Financial Officer
§ 89.515 Production requirements for unmanned aircraft without design approval or production approval issued under part 21 of this chapter. Except as provided in § 89.510, after September 16, 2022, no person may produce an unmanned aircraft for operation in the airspace of the United States unless— ( a ) The unmanned aircraft is designed and produced to meet the minimum performance requirements for standard remote identification unmanned aircraft established in § 89.310 in accordance with an FAA-accepted means of compliance; and
( b ) All of the following conditions are met: ( 1 ) *Inspection requirements for production of standard unmanned aircraft.* A person responsible for the production of standard remote identification unmanned aircraft must, upon request, allow the Administrator to inspect the person's facilities, technical data, and any standard remote identification unmanned aircraft the person produces, and to witness any tests necessary to determine compliance with this subpart.
( 2 ) *Audit requirements.* A person responsible for the production of standard remote identification unmanned aircraft must cause independent audits to be performed on a recurring basis, and additionally whenever the FAA provides notice of noncompliance or potential noncompliance, to demonstrate the unmanned aircraft listed under a declaration of compliance meet the requirements of this subpart. The person responsible for the production of standard remote identification unmanned aircraft must provide the results of all such audits to the FAA upon request.
( 3 ) *Product support and notification.* A person responsible for the production of standard remote identification unmanned aircraft must maintain product support and notification procedures to notify the public and the FAA of any defect or condition that causes an unmanned aircraft to no longer meet the requirements of this subpart, within 15 calendar days of the date the person becomes aware of the defect or condition.
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

TQ DELTA, LLC,

Appellant

v.

ARRIS GROUP, INC.,

Appellee

______________________ 

2021-1807

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2016-

01160.

______________________ 

JUDGMENT

______________________ 

PETER J. MCANDREWS, McAndrews, Held & Malloy, 

Ltd., Chicago, IL, argued for appellant. Also represented 

by RAJENDRA A. CHIPLUNKAR, DAVID Z. PETTY, THOMAS J.

WIMBISCUS. 

 DAN GRESHAM, Thomas Horstemeyer LLP, Atlanta, 

GA, argued for appellee. Also represented by CHARLES 

GRIGGERS. 

 ______________________ 

Case: 21-1807 Document: 37 Page: 1 Filed: 01/25/2022
THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is 

ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 

 PER CURIAM (NEWMAN, REYNA, and WALLACH, Circuit Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

 

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT 

 

January 25, 2022

Date

/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Peter R. Marksteiner

Clerk of Court

Case: 21-1807 Document: 37 Page: 2 Filed: 01/25/2022
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 93 (Friday, May 12, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 30611]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-12037]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--Multiservice Switching Forum (``MSF'')

    Notice is hereby given that, on October 12, 1999, pursuant to 
Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), Multiservice Switching 
Forum (``MSF'') has filed written notifications simultaneously with the 
Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in 
its membership status. The notifications were filed for the purpose of 
extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust 
plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. 
Specifically, France Telecom, Lannion Cedex, FRANCE has been added as a 
party to this venture.
    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned 
activity of the group research project. Membership in this group 
research project remains open, and Multiservice Switching Forum 
(``MSF'') intends to file additional written notification disclosing 
all changes in membership.
    On January 22, 1999, Multiservice Switching Forum (``MSF'') filed 
its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The 
Department of Justice published a notice in the Federal Register 
pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on May 26, 1999 (64 FR 28519).
    The last notification was filed with the Department on July 1, 
1999. A notice has not yet been published in the Federal Register.

Constance K. Robinson,
Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 00-12037 Filed 5-11-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
#### Wyatt J. Geter, Plaintiff in Error, v. Catherine Simmons, *Defendant in Error.*

On writ of error from a judgment in ejectment the evidence examined and found sufficient to sustain the verdict and judgment.

This case was decided by Division B.

Writ of error to the Circuit Court for Duval- County.

The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the court.

*I. L.*Purcell, for Plaintiff in Error;

*Cockrell*& Cockrell, for Defendant in Error.

Hooker, J.

— This case was before this court in 1910, and the decision reversing the judgment below for lack of evidence to support it, is found in 60 Fla. p. 67, 54 South. Rep. 91. There was afterwards another trial resulting in a verdict and judgment for defendant in error. The suit is in ejectment for the recovery of the West 20 feet of Lot 5, in Block 101, also the East 15 feet of Lot 4, in Block 101, situate in Jacksonville, Duval County, Florida. This judgment is here for review on ivrit of error. The sole question presented is on the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict. The underlying facts with reference to the legal ownership of the land embracing the land now in dispute are unusual and such as perhaps might naturally be expected from the lack of knowledge as to the rights in property and the general information peculiar to the older negro population of the Southern country. The case of Geter v. Simmons, re*195ported in 57 Fla. 423, 49 South. Rep. 131, illustrates this remark.

We think it clear from the evidence in the instant case that Catherine Simmons has been an occupant of the land now in dispute for perhaps forty or more years. She is an old fashioned ignorant negro woman. While there is a conflict between her evidence and that of the plaintiff - in error as to the character of her occupancy, there is evidence that she has for a great many years claimed the land upon which she has lived for so many years as her own; that she has from time to time rented rooms in the house on the land in which she now lives, has had exclusive use of the house and lot, has planted trees and kept a garden on it, and that Rhina Grant, from whom the plaintiff in error derives his legal title, admitted that this property belonged to the defendant in error, Catherine Simmons. Rhina Grant was the sister-in-law of Catherine, and the relationship of the parties, the feelings which naturally grow out of the relationship, renders it particularly probable that Catherine should have been regarded as the owner of house and lot. A careful reading of the evidence creates this impression, and satisfies us that the judgment below was a correct one, which is hereby affirmed.

Taylor, P. J., and Parkhill, J., concur;

Whitfield, C. J., and Si-iackleford, J., concur in the opinion.

Cockrell, J., took no part, being disqualified.
§ 414.15 Application concurrent with vehicle operator license application. ( a ) An applicant for a vehicle operator license may also identify one or more sections of its application for which it seeks to obtain a safety element approval concurrently with a license. An applicant applying for a safety element approval concurrently with a license must— ( 1 ) Meet the applicable requirements of part 450;
( 2 ) Provide the information required in § 414.13(b)(3) and (c)(2) and (3); and
( 3 ) Specify the sections of the license application that support the application for a safety element approval.
( b ) The scope of the safety element approval will be limited to what the application supports. The technical criteria for reviewing a safety element submitted as part of a vehicle operator license application are limited to the applicable requirements of part 450.
```

[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 92 (Thursday, May 11, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 30449]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-11821]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

Federal Advisory Council on Occupational Safety and Health; 
Notice of Meeting

    Notice is hereby given of the date and location of the next meeting 
of the Federal Advisory Council on Occupational Safety and Health 
(FACOSH), established under Section 1-5 of Executive Order 12196 on 
February 6, 1980, and published in the Federal Register, February 27, 
1980 (45 FR 1279). FACOSH will meet on May 31, 2000, starting at 1:30 
p.m., in Room N-3437 A/B/C/D of the Department of Labor Frances Perkins 
Building, 200 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20210. The 
meeting will adjourn at approximately 3:30 p.m., and will be open to 
the public. All persons wishing to attend this meeting must exhibit a 
photo identification to security personnel.
    Agenda items will include:
    1. Call to Order
    2. NASA Safety and Occupational Health Program Overview
    3. Reports by Subcommittees
    4. Status Reports on Pending Items
    5. New Business
    6. Adjournment
    Written data, views or comments may be submitted, preferably with 
20 copies, to the Office of Federal Agency Programs at the address 
provided below. All such submissions, received by May 25, 2000, will be 
provided to the members of the Federal Advisory Council and will be 
included in the record of the meeting. Anyone wishing to make an oral 
presentation should notify the Office of Federal Agency Programs by the 
close of business on May 25, 2000. The request should state the amount 
of time desired, the capacity in which the person will appear, and a 
brief outline of the content of the presentation. Those who request the 
opportunity to address the Federal Advisory Council may be allowed to 
speak, as time permits, at the discretion of the Chairperson. 
Individuals with disabilities who wish to attend the meeting and need 
special accommodations should contact John E. Plummer at the address 
indicated below.
    For additional information, please contact John E. Plummer, 
Director, Office of Federal Agency Programs, U.S. Department of Labor, 
Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Room N-3112, 200 
Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20210, telephone number (202) 
693-2122. An official record of the meeting will be available for 
public inspection at the Office of Federal Agency Programs.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 5th day of May 2000.
Charles N. Jeffress,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 00-11821 Filed 5-10-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P
```
§ 29.411 Ground clearance: tail rotor guard. ( a ) It must be impossible for the tail rotor to contact the landing surface during a normal landing.
( b ) If a tail rotor guard is required to show compliance with paragraph (a) of this section— ( 1 ) Suitable design loads must be established for the guard: and
( 2 ) The guard and its supporting structure must be designed to withstand those loads.
EX-99.2

BANC OF AMERICA MORTGAGE SECURITIES, INC.
MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES,
SERIES SET FORTH ON EXHIBIT I HERETO

OFFICER'S CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO SECTION 3.17
OF THE AGREEMENTS LISTED ON EXHIBIT I HERETO

I, H. Randall Chestnut, Senior Vice President of Bank of America, N.A., as
successor to Bank of America, FSB (the "Master Servicer"), hereby certify
pursuant to Section 3.17 of the Pooling and Servicing Agreements listed on
Exhibit I hereto (collectively, the "Agreements") that: (a) a review of the
activities of the Master Servicer during calendar year 2003 and of the
performance of the Master Servicer under the Agreements has been made under my
supervision, (b) to the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master
Servicer has fulfilled all its material obligations in all material respects
under the Agreements throughout calendar year 2003 and (c) to the best of my
knowledge, each related servicer has fulfilled its material obligations under
its servicing agreement with the Master Servicer in all material respects.

Dated: March 18, 2004

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.,
as Servicer

By:
----------------------------------
Name: H. Randall Chestnut
Title: Senior Vice President

<PAGE>

EXHIBIT I

PARTIES TO AGREEMENT              DATE OF AGREEMENT                  SERIES

Bank of America Mortgage            April 1, 1998                    1998-1
Securities, Inc., Bank
of America, N.A. and Deutsche
Bank National Trust Company
of California

Bank of America Mortgage            May 1, 1998                      1998-2
Securities, Inc., Bank
of America, N.A. and Deutsche
Bank National Trust Company
of California
NOTE: 

### This order is nonprecedential. 

# Wniteb**~tatei1** 

# Q[ourtof§ppeali1 fortbejfeberaI'!Circuit

MICHAEL ROYSTER,

Petitioner-Appellant,


### v. MARIROSA LAMAS, THE DISTRICTATTORNEY

OF THE COUNTY OF S. WILLIAMS, AND THE

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF, Respondents-Appellees.

2013-1065
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District ofPennsylvania in case no. 11-CV-0477, ChiefJudge J. Curtis Joyner.



### ONMOTION

ORDER The court considers whether this appeal should be transferred to the United States Court ofAppeals for the Third Circuit. Michael Royster appears to have appealed from a decision ofthe United States District Court for the Eastern District ofPennsylvania denying his petition for a writ of Case: 13-1065 Document: 2 Page: 1 Filed: 12/03/2012MICHAELROYSTER v. MARIROSALAMAS 2 habeas corpus. This court is a court of limited jurisdiction. 

### See 28 U.S.C. § 1295. Based only upon our review of the papers transmitted by the district court, it does not appear that this case falls within this court'sjurisdiction. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631, this court is authorized to transfer the case to a court in which the appeal could have been brought at the time it was filed or noticed. As such, it appears transfer to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit is appropriate. Accordingly,
IT Is ORDERED THAT: Absent objection received within 21 days ofthe date of filing ofthis order, this appeal shall be transferred to the Third Circuit pursuantto 28 U.s.C. § 1631.
FORTHE COURT

/s/Jan Horbaly Jan Horbaly Clerk s25 Case: 13-1065 Document: 2 Page: 2 Filed: 12/03/2012
Exhibit 10.2

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 Annual Report of TPG N.V. (the "Company") on Form 20-F for the period
ended 31 December 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, J.G. Haars, Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|19 February 2003                                |  | 
|----------------------------------------------- |  | 
|                                                |  | 
|/s/J.G. HAARSJ.G. Haars
Chief Financial Officer |  | 

---

QuickLinks
13308

#### KYZER *ET AL*v. DENT, AUDITOR *ET AL.*

(161 S. E., 690.)

*407
      *Mr. B. J. Wingard,*for appellant,

*Messrs. Timmerman &■ Graham,*for respondents,

December 18, 1931.

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. ChiEE Justice Beease.

The decree of Circuit Judge Johnson, appealed from in this case, is satisfactory to the Court. It- will be reported. The exceptions thereto are overruled and the decree is affirmed.

■Messrs. Justices StabeEr, Carter and Bonham concur.

Mr. Justice Cothran did not participate on account of illness.
DISMISS and Opinion Filed January 26, 2022 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-21-01025-CV 

TIZITA BELAY, Appellant 

V. 

ASHENAFI ESHETU, Appellee 

On Appeal from the 296th Judicial District Court 

Collin County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 296-55269-2019 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Justices Myers, Molberg, and Garcia 

Opinion by Justice Garcia 

Tizita Belay filed a timely notice of appeal, making the appellate record due 

on December 27, 2021. When it was not filed, we notified the district clerk and 

directed her to file the clerk’s record within thirty days. Several days later, the district 

clerk provided written verification that appellant had not paid for the clerk’s record. 

By postcard dated January 4, 2022, we directed appellant to provide us with 

written verification she had paid or made arrangements to pay for the clerk’s record. 

We cautioned appellant that the failure to provide the requested documentation 

within ten days could result in the appeal being dismissed. See TEX. R. APP. P.
 –2– 

37.3(b), 42.3(b), (c). To date, appellant has not responded, and the clerk’s record has 

not been filed. 

Under these circumstances, we dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution. 

TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(b), 42.3(b), (c). 

 

211025F.P05 

 

/Dennise Garcia/ 

DENNISE GARCIA 

JUSTICE 
 –3– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

TIZITA BELAY, Appellant 

No. 05-21-01025-CV V. 

ASHENAFI ESHETU, Appellee 

 On Appeal from the 296th Judicial 

District Court, Collin County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 296-55269-

2019. 

Opinion delivered by Justice Garcia. 

Justices Myers and Molberg 

participating. 

 In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is 

DISMISSED for want of prosecution. 

Judgment entered January 26, 2022