alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Jacob Shepherd *against*Peter F. Baylor.

ON CERTIORARI.

Misconduct of jury, *(a)*

(a)

*Demund vs. Gowan, ante 687. Oram vs, Bishop, 7 Hal. 159.*

Kirkpatrick O. J.

In this case, the jury, after they ]ja(j retired, to consider of their verdict, left the room, forcibly, and against the will of the constable; one of them actually absconded, and returned home to his own house; and two others were found in the public road, *955and could not be gotten to return, till they were actually seized, and taken back by the constable.

Now, though it be admitted, that small irregularities in the jury, such as eating and drinking, unless it be by the procurement, or at the expense, of the prevailing party, is not sufficient to set aside a verdict; .yet, conduct like this, is too gross to be tolerated. It is such a deviation from duty, decency, and order, as to impeach the motives, as well as the verdict, of any jury ; and, therefore,

Let the judgment be reversed.
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Bob Deuell v. Texas Right to Life Committee, Inc.

Appellate case number: 01-15-00011-CV

Trial court case number: 2014-32179

Trial court: 152nd District Court of Harris County

Appellee’s Motion for Extension of Time to File Appellee’s Brief or Alternatively to 

Abate the Due Date for the Appellee’s Brief Until the Pending Motion to Dismiss Appeal for 

Want of Jurisdiction is Decided is GRANTED, in part.

The due date for appellee’s brief will be reset by the Court upon resolution of Appellee’s 

Motion to Dismiss Appeal for Want of Jurisdiction.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Rebeca Huddle

Date: February 20, 2015
Exhibit 21.1



Subsidiaries of Pulaski Financial Corp.



Registrant



Pulaski Financial Corp.



|                                     |  |                         |   |  |                                       
|------------------------------------ |  | ----------------------- | - |  | --------------------------------------
|Subsidiaries (1)                     |  | Percentage of Ownership |   |  | Jurisdiction or State of Incorporation
|Pulaski Bank                         |  | 100                     | % |  | United States                         
|Pulaski Service Corporation (2)      |  | 100                     | % |  | Missouri                              
|Pulaski Financial Statutory Trust I  |  | 100                     | % |  | Connecticut                           
|Pulaski Financial Statutory Trust II |  | 100                     | % |  | Delaware                              

---

|(1) | The operations of the subsidiaries of the Registrant are included in the Registrants Consolidated Financial Statements contained in the Annual Report to Stockholders.
|--- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(2) | Wholly-owned by Pulaski Bank.
|--- | -----------------------------
§ 450.117 Trajectory analysis for normal flight. ( a ) *General.* A flight safety analysis must include a trajectory analysis that establishes, for any phase of flight within the scope as provided by § 450.113(a), the limits of a launch or reentry vehicle's normal flight as defined by the nominal trajectory, and the following sets of trajectories sufficient to characterize variability and uncertainty during normal flight: ( 1 ) A set of trajectories to characterize variability. This set must describe how the intended trajectory could vary due to conditions known prior to initiation of flight; and
( 2 ) A set of trajectories to characterize uncertainty. This set must describe how the actual trajectory could differ from the intended trajectory due to random uncertainties in all parameters with a significant influence on the vehicle's behavior throughout normal flight.
( b ) *Trajectory model.* A final trajectory analysis must use a six-degree of freedom trajectory model to satisfy the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section.
( c ) *Atmospheric effects.* A trajectory analysis must account for atmospheric conditions that have an effect on the trajectory, including atmospheric profiles that are no less severe than the worst conditions under which flight might be attempted, and for uncertainty in the atmospheric conditions.
( d ) *Application requirements.* An applicant must submit the following: ( 1 ) A description of the methods used to characterize the vehicle's flight behavior throughout normal flight, in accordance with § 450.115(c).
( 2 ) The quantitative input data, including uncertainties, used to model the vehicle's normal flight in six degrees of freedom.
( 3 ) The worst atmospheric conditions under which flight might be attempted, and a description of how the operator will evaluate the atmospheric conditions and uncertainty in the atmospheric conditions prior to initiating the operation;
( 4 ) Representative normal flight trajectory analysis outputs, including the position velocity, and orientation for each second of flight for— ( i ) The nominal trajectory;
( ii ) A set of trajectories that characterize variability in the intended trajectory based on conditions known prior to initiation of flight; and
( iii ) A set of trajectories that characterize how the actual trajectory could differ from the intended trajectory due to random uncertainties.
<PAGE>
Exhibit 10.15a

ADDENDUM

This is an Addendum to that Coal Sales Agreement entered into on the 21ST day
of July 2003, by and between Kentucky Energy Consultants, Inc. ("KECI") and
Eastern Consolidated Energy, Inc. ("ECEI").

For ten dollars and other good and adequate consideration the adequacy of
which is hereby acknowledged, Paragraph 7 of the above Agreement is hereby
amended as follows:

Effective February 1, 2005, the fees and commissions to be paid to KECI for
its services by ECEI will be two and one half percent (2 1/2%) of the gross
sales price received by ECEI for any and all coal sold by ECEI on purchase
orders and/or contracts on either the spot or contract arrangements.  Payments
made by ECEI to KECI will be made within three days from the time ECEI
receives payment from coal purchaser.

WITNESS  this 18th day of January 2005.


Eastern Consolidated Energy, Inc.

By:/s/David W. Guthrie
      David W. Guthrie, President


Kentucky Energy Consultants, Inc.

By:/s/Larry Hunt
      Larry Hunt, President
§ 63.3 Certificates and ratings required. ( a ) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, no person may act as a flight engineer of a civil aircraft of U.S. registry unless that person has in his or her physical possession or readily accessible in the aircraft: ( 1 ) A current flight engineer certificate with appropriate ratings issued to that person under this part;
( 2 ) A document conveying temporary authority to exercise certificate privileges issued by the Airman Certification Branch under § 63.16(f); or
( 3 ) When engaged in a flight operation within the United States for a part 119 certificate holder authorized to conduct operations under part 121 of this chapter, a temporary document provided by that certificate holder under an approved certificate verification plan.
( b ) A person may act as a flight engineer of an aircraft only if that person holds a current second-class (or higher) medical certificate issued to that person under part 67 of this chapter, or other documentation acceptable to the FAA, that is in that person's physical possession or readily accessible in the aircraft.
( c ) When the aircraft is operated within a foreign country, a current flight engineer certificate issued by the country in which the aircraft is operated, with evidence of current medical qualification for that certificate, may be used. Also, in the case of a flight engineer certificate issued under § 63.42, evidence of current medical qualification accepted for the issue of that certificate is used in place of a medical certificate.
( d ) No person may act as a flight navigator of a civil aircraft of U.S. registry unless that person has in his or her physical possession a current flight navigator certificate issued to him or her under this part and a second-class (or higher) medical certificate issued to him or her under part 67 of this chapter within the preceding 12 months. However, when the aircraft is operated within a foreign country, a current flight navigator certificate issued by the country in which the aircraft is operated, with evidence of current medical qualification for that certificate, may be used.
( e ) Each person who holds a flight engineer or flight navigator certificate, medical certificate, or temporary document in accordance with paragraph (a)(3) of this section shall present it for inspection upon the request of the Administrator or an authorized representative of the National Transportation Safety Board, or of any Federal, State, or local law enforcement officer.
[Amdt. 60-6, 83 FR 30280, June 27, 2018]
§ 382.69 What requirements must carriers meet concerning the accessibility of videos, DVDs, and other audio-visual presentations shown on-aircraft to individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing? ( a ) As a carrier, you must ensure that all new videos, DVDs, and other audio-visual displays played on aircraft for safety purposes, and all such new audio-visual displays played on aircraft for informational purposes that were created under your control, are high-contrast captioned. The captioning must be in the predominant language or languages in which you communicate with passengers on the flight.
( b ) The requirements of paragraph (a) of this section go into effect with respect to audio-visual displays used for safety purposes on November 10, 2009.
( c ) Between May 13, 2009 and November 9, 2009, U.S. carriers must ensure that all videos, DVDs, and other audio-visual displays played on aircraft for safety purposes have open captioning or an inset for a sign language interpreter, unless such captioning or inset either would interfere with the video presentation so as to render it ineffective or would not be large enough to be readable, in which case these carriers must use an equivalent non-video alternative for transmitting the briefing to passengers with hearing impairments.
( d ) The requirements of paragraph (a) of this section go into effect with respect to informational displays on January 8, 2010.
**Exhibit
      32.2**








**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 Quarterly Report of Tower Financial Corporation (the
      "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2007 as filed with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
      Richard R. Sawyer, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary of the Company,
      certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to
§ 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1)           The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





(2)           The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.








/s/
                Richard R. SawyerRichard
                R. SawyerChief
                Financial Officer and SecretaryNovember
                12, 2007
In The Matter Of: DOD, INC. Respondent 

## SERVED: JANUARY 28, 2015
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS WASHINGTON, DC ) ) ) ) ) DocketNo. FAA-2014-0684 CaseNo. 2009S070013

ORDER CONTINUING RULE 16 LITIGATION CONFERENCE
OnNovember 24,2014, an Order Setting Rule 16 Litigation Scheduling Conference and Directing Rule 26(f) Planning and Submission was filed. On December23, 2014, the FAA filed an unsigned Rule 26(f) Report, along with a letter to the Respondent's president, Mr. Luis D. Lopez, asking Mr. Lopez to sign and return the Rule 26(f) Report. On January 20, 2015, the FAA filed an individual Rule 26(f) Report, noting that the Respondenthad notresponded to its December23, 2014 letter requestingjoint signature. OnJanuary 27, 2015, the parties appearedby telephone for a Rule 16 Litigation Scheduling Conference, and discussed theirrecent settlement discussions. Pursuantto 14 C.F.R. §13.205(a)(1), (6) and (7), Civ. 

### R. 16, 14 C.F.R. § 13.217, and 14 C.F

### .R. § 13.220, and afterreviewing all relevant caselaw, regulation, statutory authority, and being fully advised; IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 

### 1. March 18,2015 (1:30pm-2:30pm): The Rule 16 LRule 16 Litigation Scheduling Conference is continued to Wednesday, March 18, 2015 (1:30pm-2:30pm). Theparties shall access the conferenceby dialing 202-493-2343. 2. Clarification or Questions: For clarifications ofthis order or questions with regard to the procedures to be followed in this case, please contact Mr. Cody 

### L. Smith, AttorneyAdvisor, at the Office ofHearings (202-366-6941).

Attachment: Service ListSERVICE LIST- BYU.S. MAIL ORIGINAL & ONE COPY Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building-Suite2W10001

Ms. Rashawn George Complainant's Counsel Federal Aviation Administration Office ofthe Regional Counsel, AS0-7 Southern Region 1701 ColumbiaAvenue College Park, GA 30337 TEL: 404-305-5200 FAX: 404-305-5223 DGD, Inc., Respondent Attn: Luis D. Lopez, President 1325 N.W. 78th Avenue, Suite 104 Doral, FL 33126 TEL: 888-219-4544 FAX: 786-999-8893 Judge J.E. Sullivan U.S. Administrative LawJudge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation ONE COPY

1200 NewJersey Avenue, S.E. (E11-310) Washington, DC 20590 TEL: 202-366-6941 FAX: 202-366-7536 DocketNo. FAA-2014-0684 (Civil Penalty Action)

1Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., W1lbur Wright Building-Suite 2W 1000, Washington, DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC--430.
281-624-6827

info@trumbullunmanned.com

TRUMBULL UNMANNED

April 10, 2014

Mr. Jake Troutman

Program Analyst, Rulemaking

FAA Office of Aviation Safety

Airman and Airspace Rules Division

Mr. Troutman,

Re: FAA-2014-0890, we are submitting additional information for the Trumbull Unmanned, LLC 

(“Trumbull”) Section 333 exemption for safe UAS operations in the energy sector.

Due to the proprietary nature of the information provided, we ask that they be treated as 

confidential information. Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. 

Respectfully,

Dyan Gibbens

Dyan Gibbens, President

Trumbull Unmanned, LLC

Page 1 of 1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 22-0638

CITY OF MISSOULA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

STEVEN P. MCNELLEY,

Defendant and Appellant.

__________________________________________________________________

ORDER

Upon consideration of counsel’s motion to dismiss the aboveentitled cause due to lack of jurisdiction, and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the above matter is hereby 

DISMISSED without prejudice.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

October 30 2023

10/30/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0638
EXHIBIT
32.1 AND 32.2 -- CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND ACTING CHIEF
FINANCIAL OFFICER OF FIRST CAPITAL INTERNATIONAL, INC., PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 AND SECTION 1350 OF 18 U.S.C. 63.








I, Alex
Genin, the Chief Executive Officer and Acting Chief Financial Officer of First
Capital International, Inc. hereby certify that First Capital International,
Inc.'s periodic report on Form 10-Q and the financial statements contained
therein fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d) and that information
contained in the periodic report on Form 10-Q and the financial statements
contained therein fairly represents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of the operations of First Capital International,
Inc.







Date:  November
      14, 2008
              /s/
      Alex GeninChief
      Executive Officer andActing
      Chief Financial Officer andPrincipal
      Financial Officer
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-85,159-01

EX PARTE EZEQUIEL NEVELLY RUIZ, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. W09-23496-M(A) IN THE 194 DISTRICT COURT

TH

FROM DALLAS COUNTY

ALCALA, J., filed a concurring opinion in which JOHNSON, J., joined.

CONCURRING OPINION

I respectfully concur in the Court’s order that remands this pro se habeas application

to the convicting court for further development of the record. I, however, do not join the

Court’s order because it fails to accurately track the statutory language in the Code of

Criminal Procedure, in that it improperly limits an indigent pro se habeas applicant’s

entitlement to the assistance of appointed post-conviction counsel to situations involving a

hearing on remand. As I previously explained in my concurring opinion in Ex parte Pointer,

in order to comply with the statutory requirements in the Code, this Court’s order should

instead more broadly require a habeas court to appoint counsel for an indigent pro se habeas
Ruiz - 2

applicant whenever the court determines that the interests of justice require it. See Ex parte

Pointer, Nos. WR-84,786-01 & WR-84,786-02, 2016 WL 3193254 (Tex. Crim. App. June

8, 2016) (Alcala, J., concurring) (citing TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 1.051(d)(3) (providing

that an indigent habeas applicant “is entitled to have the trial court appoint an attorney to

represent him in . . . a habeas corpus proceeding if the court concludes that the interests of

justice require representation”)). Because the Court’s order fails to track the statutory

language in the Code of Criminal Procedure by incorrectly suggesting that the habeas court’s

authority to appoint post-conviction counsel is limited to situations involving a hearing on

remand, I cannot join the Court’s order. Aside from my disagreement with the language in

this Court’s order, I otherwise respectfully concur.

Filed: June 29, 2016

Do not publish
§ 107.64 Temporary certificate. ( a ) A temporary remote pilot certificate with a small UAS rating is issued for up to 120 calendar days, at which time a permanent certificate will be issued to a person whom the Administrator finds qualified under this part.
( b ) A temporary remote pilot certificate with a small UAS rating expires: ( 1 ) On the expiration date shown on the certificate;
( 2 ) Upon receipt of the permanent certificate; or
( 3 ) Upon receipt of a notice that the certificate sought is denied or revoked.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

KEVIN ALLEN, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

LOPEZ, Dr.; et al., 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 19-16401 

D.C. No. 1:19-cv-00154-DADBAM 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Dale A. Drozd, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted January 8, 2020**

Before: CALLAHAN, NGUYEN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. 

California state prisoner Kevin Allen appeals pro se from the district court’s 

judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to 

his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We 

review de novo the district court’s dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Resnick v. 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

JAN 13 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 19-16401 

Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Allen’s action because Allen failed to 

allege facts sufficient to state a plausible deliberate indifference claim. See Hebbe 

v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are 

construed liberally, plaintiff must present factual allegations sufficient to state a 

plausible claim for relief); Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1057-60 (9th Cir. 

2004) (a prison official acts with deliberate indifference only if he or she knows of 

and disregards an excessive risk to the prisoner’s health; medical malpractice, 

negligence, or a difference of opinion concerning the course of treatment does not 

amount to deliberate indifference).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Allen’s motion to 

appoint counsel because Allen did not demonstrate exceptional circumstances. See 

Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991) (setting forth standard of 

review and requirements for appointment of counsel).

We do not consider documents not presented to the district court. See United 

States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990) (“Documents or facts not presented 

to the district court are not part of the record on appeal.”).

AFFIRMED.
WILLIAM PERMENTER,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Respondent.

___________________________/

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D16-1892

Opinion filed May 18, 2016. 

Petition Alleging Ineffective Assistance of Appellate Counsel -- Original 

Jurisdiction.

William Permenter, pro se, Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The petition alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel is denied on the 

merits.

THOMAS, WINOKUR, and JAY, JJ., CONCUR.