alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7729

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus FRANCISCO MORENO SOSA, a/k/a Sld Dft 1, a/k/a Alex Poncho, a/k/a Franko Hernandez, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Shelby. Lacy H. Thornburg, District Judge. (CR-96-48) Submitted: February 25, 1999 Decided: March 10, 1999 Before HAMILTON, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Francisco Moreno Sosa, Appellant Pro Se. Brian Lee Whisler, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM:Francisco Moreno Sosa appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for court-appointed counsel and investigative and expert witnesses to aid in the preparation of a motion for reliefunder 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Sosa , No. CR-96-48 (W.D.N.C. Oct. 27, 1998). We deny Sosa’s motion for the apppointment of counsel and 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
§ 61.419 How do I obtain privileges to provide training in an additional category or class of light-sport aircraft? If you hold a flight instructor certificate with a sport pilot rating and seek to provide training in an additional category or class of light-sport aircraft you must— ( a ) Receive a logbook endorsement from the authorized instructor who trained you on the applicable areas of operation specified in § 61.409 certifying you have met the aeronautical knowledge and flight proficiency requirements for the additional category and class flight instructor privilege you seek;
( b ) Successfully complete a proficiency check from an authorized instructor, other than the instructor who trained you, consisting of the tasks in the appropriate areas of operation contained in the applicable Practical Test Standards (incorporated by reference, see § 61.14) as listed in appendix A of this part for the additional category and class flight instructor privilege you seek;
( c ) Complete an application for those privileges on a form and in a manner acceptable to the FAA and present this application to the authorized instructor who conducted the proficiency check specified in paragraph (b) of this section; and
( d ) Receive a logbook endorsement from the instructor who conducted the proficiency check specified in paragraph (b) of this section certifying you are proficient in the areas of operation and authorized for the additional category and class flight instructor privilege.
[Docket No. FAA-2001-11133, 69 FR 44875, July 27, 2004, as amended by Docket No. FAA-2022-1463; Amdt. No.61-153, 89 FR 22518, Apr. 1, 2024]
§ 91.1107 Recurrent training. ( a ) Each program manager must ensure that each crewmember receives recurrent training and is adequately trained and currently proficient for the type aircraft and crewmember position involved.
( b ) Recurrent ground training for crewmembers must include at least the following: ( 1 ) A quiz or other review to determine the crewmember's knowledge of the aircraft and crewmember position involved.
( 2 ) Instruction as necessary in the subjects required for initial ground training by this subpart, as appropriate, including low-altitude windshear training and training on operating during ground icing conditions, as prescribed in § 91.1097 and described in § 91.1101, and emergency training.
( c ) Recurrent flight training for pilots must include, at least, flight training in the maneuvers or procedures in this subpart, except that satisfactory completion of the check required by § 91.1065 within the preceding 12 months may be substituted for recurrent flight training.
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
**1134 KA 11-01036**  PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., FAHEY, SCONIERS, WHALEN, AND DEJOSEPH, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,
V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
JASON LAWSON, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. (APPEAL NO. 6.)

LINDA M. CAMPBELL, SYRACUSE, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. WILLIAM J. FITZPATRICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, SYRACUSE (VICTORIA M. WHITE OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Onondaga County Court (Jeffrey R. Merrill, A.J.), rendered October 5, 2010. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of burglary in the third degree. It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Same Memorandum as in People v Lawson ([appeal No. 7] ___ AD3d ___ [Jan. 2, 2015]).

Entered: January 2, 2015 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
#### § 385.8 Exercise of authority in “acting” capacity.

Unless the assignment provides otherwise, staff members serving in an “acting” capacity may exercise the authority assigned to the staff members for whom they are acting.
#### HARRY JAFFA v ALVENA JAFFA

Ohio Appeals, 8th Dist, Cuyahoga Co

Decided Sept. 16, 1929

Frank R. Jaffa, Esq., Cleveland, for Harry Jaffa.

Bernard H. Schulist, Esq., & C. M. Livingston, Esq., both of Cleveland, for Alvena Jaffa.

VICKERY, PJ.

The basis of the claim in the petition in error is that, inasmuch as the defendant below, the plaintiff in error here, had no money or property at the time the order for alimony was made, it was ineffectual and void. In other words, that his future earnings could not be taken into consideration in order to make an alimony order.

The plaintiff in error failed to appear in court, and we not do know just what his argument is, but it surely cannot be possible that a man might be earning large sums of money in the way of salary, and even though he did not have any property or money at the time the decree was entered, he would be immune from the legal obligation imposed upon him to support his wife and children, if there were any.

We think the law is well settled that alimony may be allowed to a wife or husband out of the future earnings of the recalcitrant party, and such is the force and effect of the decision of our Supreme Court in the case of Lape vs. Lape, 99 OS., 143.

We think this is conclusive of the question involved in the instant case, and the Common Pleas Court did not commit any error, and the judgment below will be affirmed.

Sullivan and Levine, JJ., concur.
§ 91.1067 Initial and recurrent flight attendant crewmember testing requirements. No program manager or owner may use a flight attendant crewmember, nor may any person serve as a flight attendant crewmember unless, since the beginning of the 12th month before that service, the program manager has determined by appropriate initial and recurrent testing that the person is knowledgeable and competent in the following areas as appropriate to assigned duties and responsibilities— ( a ) Authority of the pilot in command;
( b ) Passenger handling, including procedures to be followed in handling deranged persons or other persons whose conduct might jeopardize safety;
( c ) Crewmember assignments, functions, and responsibilities during ditching and evacuation of persons who may need the assistance of another person to move expeditiously to an exit in an emergency;
( d ) Briefing of passengers;
( e ) Location and operation of portable fire extinguishers and other items of emergency equipment;
( f ) Proper use of cabin equipment and controls;
( g ) Location and operation of passenger oxygen equipment;
( h ) Location and operation of all normal and emergency exits, including evacuation slides and escape ropes; and
( i ) Seating of persons who may need assistance of another person to move rapidly to an exit in an emergency as prescribed by the program manager's operations manual.
§ 417.121 Safety critical preflight operations. ( a ) *General.* A launch operator must perform safety critical preflight operations that protect the public from the adverse effects of hazards associated with launch processing and flight of a launch vehicle. The launch operator must identify all safety critical preflight operations in the launch schedule required by § 417.17(b)(1). Safety critical preflight operations must include those defined in this section.
( b ) *Countdown.* A launch operator must implement its countdown plan, of § 417.111(l), for each launch. A launch operator must disseminate a countdown plan to all personnel responsible for the countdown and flight of a launch vehicle, and each person must follow that plan.
( c ) [Reserved]
( d ) *Meteorological data.* A launch operator must conduct operations and coordinate with weather organizations, as needed, to obtain accurate meteorological data to support the flight safety analysis required by subpart C of this part and to ensure compliance with the flight commit criteria required by § 417.113.
( e ) *Local notification.* A launch operator must implement its local agreements and public coordination plan of § 417.111(i).
( f ) *Hazard area surveillance.* A launch operator must implement its hazard area surveillance and clearance plan, of § 417.111(j), to meet the public safety criteria of § 417.107(b) for each launch.
( g ) *Flight safety system preflight tests.* A launch operator must conduct preflight tests of any flight safety system as required by section E417.41 of appendix E of this part.
( h ) *Launch vehicle tracking data verification.* For each launch, a launch operator must implement written procedures for verifying the accuracy of any launch vehicle tracking data provided. For a launch vehicle flown with a flight safety system, any source of tracking data must satisfy the requirements of § 417.307(b).
( i ) *Unguided suborbital rocket preflight operations.* For the launch of an unguided suborbital rocket, in addition to meeting the other requirements of this section, a launch operator must perform the preflight wind weighting and other preflight safety operations required by §§ 417.125, 417.233, and appendix C of this part.
[Docket No. FAA-2000-7953, 71 FR 50537, Aug. 25, 2006, as amended by Amdt. No. 417-5, 81 FR 59439, Aug. 30, 2016; Doc. No. FAA-2019-0229, Amdt. 417-6, 85 FR 79716, Dec. 10, 2020]
#### LEONARD v CLEVE ELEC ILLUMINATING CO

Ohio Appeals, 8th Dist, Lorain Co

No. 493.

Decided October 4, 1929

Messrs. Webber & Symons, Elyria, for Leonard.

Messrs, Fauver & Fauver, Elyria, for Cleve Elec Ilium Co.

PARDEE, J.

We have examined the petition and the evidence offered thereunder in the preliminary hearing, in the Probate Court, and we find that the petition does contain sufficient allegations as to the necessity for said appronriation, and that said necessity, so alleged, is a public one, and that the evidence offered upon the trial to sustain said allegations was sufficient.

As to the second error, the bill of exceptions shows that a letter written by the company to said plaintiff in error was offered, which shows that the company offered the plaintiff in error a certain sum of money as compensation and damages for the property of the plaintiff in error taken by said company. Said letter contains a provision that-if said offer is not accepted by said plaintiff in error by a certain time, it would be considered by said company as a refusal by said plaintiff in error to accept its offer.

The plaintiff in error claims that this was an insufficient showing of inability to agree with said plaintiff in error; but with this contention wé do not agree. This letter shows upon its face that it was an original duplicate of a letter given to said plaintiff in error by said company, and is some evidence of inability to agree with said plaintiff in error; and in fact, there was no evidence to the contrary. The trial court having found, upon this state of the record, in favor of said company, we are unable to say that said finding, is manifestly against the weight of the evidence.

We are therefore unanimously of the opinion that the errors alleged by the plaintiff in error and relied upon by him for a reversal of the judgment, are insufficient to justify a reversal. The judgments of the Probate Court and of the Common Pleas Court are therefore affirmed.

Funk, PJ, and Washburn, J, concur.
§ 325.6 Periodic reviews. ( a ) The Department will start a periodic review of essential air service within 1 year of the date of the previous determination of essential air service for eligible places receiving subsidized service, within 2 years of the date of the previous determination for eligible places in Alaska, and within 3 years of the date of the previous determination for eligible places without subsidized air service.
( b ) The review shall be conducted in accordance with the procedures in §§ 325.4, 325.5 and 325.7.
( c ) The Department may review the designation under 49 U.S.C. 41733 to determine whether the community designated as an eligible place continues to meet the criteria in part 270 of this chapter.
[Docket No. 82, 50 FR 2434, Jan. 16, 1985, as amended by Doc. No. DOT-OST-2014-0140, 84 FR 15938, Apr. 16, 2019]
###### Editorial Note on Subpart D of Part 95

#### Editorial Note:

The prescribed COP's for Federal airways, jet routes, or other direct routes for which an MEA is designated in this part are not carried in the Code of Federal Regulations. For Federal Register citations affecting these routes see the List of CFR Sections Affected, which appears in the Finding Aids section of the printed volume and at *www.govinfo.gov.*

#### § 95.8001 General.

This subpart prescribes COP's for Federal airways, jet routes, area navigation routes, or other direct routes for which an MEA is designated in this part. Unless otherwise specified the COP is midway between the navigation facilities or way points for straight route segments, or at the intersection of radials or courses forming a dogleg in the case of dogleg route segments.

[Doc. No. 10580, 35 FR 14610, Sept. 18, 1970]
Order entered June 5, 2019

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 18
- 01352
- CR GLENN LOUIS BAKER, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 416th Jud icial District Court

Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 416
- 82158
- 2014



### O RDER
A ppellant, who was convicted of indecency with a child by sexual contact, filed a brief on May 20, 2019. In the brief, appellant uses the names of the child victim, cert ain child witnesses, and other children. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 9.10(b) (“Unless a court orders otherwise, an electronic or paper filing with the court, including the contents of any appendices, must not contain sensitive data.”), id. 9.10(a)(3) (“ Sensitive D ata Defined. Sensitive data consists of: (1) a driver’s license number, passport number, social security number, tax identification number or similar government

- issued personal identification number; (2) bank account number, credit card number, and other f

inancial account number; (3) a birth date, a home address, and the name of any person who was a minor at the time the offense was committed.”). Accordingly, weSTRIKE the brief filed in contravention of counsel’s certification that the brief complied with

rule 9.10(a) and (b)

. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 9.10(e).
We ORDER appellant to file, within TEN DAYS of the date of this order, an amended brief that identifies the child victim and any other child (including witnesses) either generically (for example, “victim” or “victim’s younger sister”) or by initials only. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P

. 9.10(d).
We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order to David L. Botsford and the Collin County District Attorney’s Office.
/s/ CORY L. CARLYLE JUSTICE
§ 125.169 Fire-extinguishing system materials. ( a ) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, each component of a fire-extinguishing system that is in a designated fire zone must be made of fireproof materials.
( b ) Connections that are subject to relative motion between components of the airplane must be made of flexible materials that are at least fire-resistant and be located so as to minimize the probability of failure.
Dismissed; Opinion Filed January 23, 2018.

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 17

- 00720

- CV

UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, PRATT & WHITNEY DIVISION D/B /A PRATT & WHITNEY COMM ERCIAL SERVICEABLE A SSETS , Appellant V. AERREACH AERO SPACE SOLUTIONS, LLC AND R OBERT V. HOGAN, INDIVIDUALLY AND DER IVATIVELY ON BEHALF OF TURBINE ASSET HOLDINGS, LLC , Appellees

On Appeal from the 298th Judicial District Court

Dallas C ounty, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC

- 16

- 07714

- M



### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Bridges, Myers, and Schenck Opinion by Justice Myers Before the Court is the parties’ joint motion for dismissal of this appeal , filed January 4,

2018

. The parties inform the Court that they have settled. Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate

Procedure 42.1(a), we grant the motion and dismiss this appeal.

170720F.P05 /Lana Myers/ LANA MYERS JUSTICE– 2

– 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, PRATT & WHITNEY DIVISION D/B/A PRATT & WHITNEY COMMERCIAL SERVICEABLE ASSETS, Appellant

No. 05

- 17

- 00720

- CV V.

AERREACH AERO SPACE SOLUTIONS, LLC AND ROBERT V. HOGAN, INDIVIDUALLY AND DERIVATIVELY ON BEHALF OF T URBINE ASSET HOLDINGS, LLC, Appellees On Appeal from the 298th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC

- 16

- 07714

- M. Opinion delivered by Justice Myers. Justices Bridges and Schenck participating.

In accordance with this C ourt’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED

.

It is ORDERED that each party bear its own costs of this appeal.

Judgment entered this 23rd day of January, 2018.
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 

I,Robert W. Hill, Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer and Secretary of InterDentService Corporation (the “Company”), certify, pursuant to Section 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended September30, 2006 which this certification accompanies fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934(U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

(2)information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|            | /s/ ROBERT W.  HILL                               |   |   |
|------------|---------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|
|       | Robert W. Hill                                    |   |
|       | Chief Financial  Officer, Treasurer and Secretary |   |
| ** ** | November 9, 2006                                  |   |

 

 

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET OF GEO SPECIALTY CHEMICALS, INC. AS OF MARCH 31,
2000 AND THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE FIRST THREE MONTHS OF
2000. EXCEPT FOR THE DATES AND EPS NUMBERS, ALL OTHER AMOUNTS ARE IN THOUSANDS
OF DOLLARS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                          $9,661
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   27,208
<ALLOWANCES>                                       249
<INVENTORY>                                     21,012
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                60,317
<PP&E>                                         115,864
<DEPRECIATION>                                  20,027
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 198,363
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           21,297
<BONDS>                                        120,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      21,495
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   198,363
<SALES>                                         41,830
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                41,830
<CGS>                                           32,483
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   37,995
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   252
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,734
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (151)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      (21)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (130)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (130)
<EPS-BASIC>                                  ($955.88)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                ($955.88)


</TABLE>
#### RECH v YOUNGSTOWN MUNI RY CO

Ohio Appeals, 7th Dist, Mahoning Co

Decided Nov 3, 1928

Ruff alo & Buonpane, Youngstown, for Rech.

Harrington, DeFord, Huxley & Smith, Youngstown, for Ry Co.

*203POLLOCK, J.

Defendant’s claim is that the .automobile in which the plaintiff was riding was operated upon Albert Street over on the right hand side of the street and beyond the defendant’s track on which this electric car was passing; that when it came into collision or came to the parked automobile and stopped, the electric car was but a short distance away and the track was clear, that the operator of the car, without waiting for the street car to pass, backed his car onto the track, that the street car was so close that it was impossible for the motorman to stop the car and prevent the injury. This is the testimony of a number of the witnesses. Plaintiff herself testifies that the operator of the automobile backed the car from three to four feet, something like that. The trouble about this question is that the operator of this automobile, while he was somewhat uncertain, yet he testifies in several places positively that before he came into collision with the parked car that .the left hand wheels of his automobile were over beyond the right hand ■ rail of the electric track, and was in that position when he had to stop on account of the parked car; that he had just started to back, but that the backing was not the cause of the automobile being in front of the street ca,r, but it was because' he had been compelled to stop when he came to this parked automobile. There is some evidence tending' to prove that this car was being operated prior to the backing, on the electric track and w,as when it stopped. If it was, it was a question for the jury to determine, whether the. operator of the street car should not have seen the automobile upon its tracks in time to stop the car and avoid the injury.

We are not permitted to weigh this testimony, but if there is a scintilla of evidence to that effect, the court could not direct a verdict. For this reason the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings. Exceptions noted.

Farr and Roberts, JJ, concur.