alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Order entered November 22, 2022

In The 

### Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**

No. 05

- 22

- 00491

- CR
KENVAIRIAY JEVERA SMITH , Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 3 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F 20

- 76131

- J

O RDER
Before the Court is th e November 21, 2022 second request of court reporter Kimberly Xavier to exten d the time to file the reporter’s record. We GRANT the
request and ORDER the reporter’s record filed by December 19, 2022

. We
caution Ms. Xavier that further requests to extend the time to f ile the reporter ’ s
record will be disfavored.
/s/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III CHIEF JUSTICE
§ 29.803 Emergency evacuation. ( a ) Each crew and passenger area must have means for rapid evacuation in a crash landing, with the landing gear ( 1 ) extended and
( 2 ) retracted, considering the possibility of fire.
( b ) Passenger entrance, crew, and service doors may be considered as emergency exits if they meet the requirements of this section and of §§ 29.805 through 29.815.
( c ) [Reserved]
( d ) Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this section, the following categories of rotorcraft must be tested in accordance with the requirements of appendix D of this part to demonstrate that the maximum seating capacity, including the crewmembers required by the operating rules, can be evacuated from the rotorcraft to the ground within 90 seconds: ( 1 ) Rotorcraft with a seating capacity of more than 44 passengers.
( 2 ) Rotorcraft with all of the following: ( i ) Ten or more passengers per passenger exit as determined under § 29.807(b).
( ii ) No main aisle, as described in § 29.815, for each row of passenger seats.
( iii ) Access to each passenger exit for each passenger by virtue of design features of seats, such as folding or break-over seat backs or folding seats.
( e ) A combination of analysis and tests may be used to show that the rotorcraft is capable of being evacuated within 90 seconds under the conditions specified in § 29.803(d) if the Administrator finds that the combination of analysis and tests will provide data, with respect to the emergency evacuation capability of the rotorcraft, equivalent to that which would be obtained by actual demonstration.
[Doc. No. 5084, 29 FR 16150, Dec. 3, 1964, as amended by Amdt. 29-3, 33 FR 967, Jan. 26, 1968; Amdt. 27-26, 55 FR 8004, Mar. 6, 1990]
Exhibit 99.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                       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 Central Utilities Production Corporation
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2002 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Stan Dedmon, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.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 result of operations of
          the Company.


/s/ Stan Dedmon
-------------------------------
Stan Dedmon
Chief Executive Officer
Date: August 27, 2002
     --------------------------
§ 431.85 Registration of space objects. ( a ) To assist the U.S. Government in implementing Article IV of the 1975 Convention on Registration of Objects Launched into Outer Space, each licensee shall provide to the FAA the information required by paragraph (b) of this section for all objects placed in space by a licensed RLV mission, including an RLV and any components, except: ( 1 ) Any object owned and registered by the U.S. Government; and
( 2 ) Any object owned by a foreign entity.
( b ) For each object that must be registered in accordance with this section, a licensee shall submit the following information not later than thirty (30) days following the conduct of a licensed RLV mission : ( 1 ) The international designator of the space object(s);
( 2 ) Date and location of the RLV mission initiation;
( 3 ) General function of the space object; and
( 4 ) Final orbital parameters, including: ( i ) Nodal period;
( ii ) Inclination;
( iii ) Apogee; and
( iv ) Perigee.
( c ) A licensee shall notify the FAA when it removes an object that it has previously placed in space.
COE N COMPANY, IN C. 

November 3, 2009 

Hatch 

tl.1 

Gateway View Plaza 

1600 West Carson Street 

Pittsburgh, PA 15219 

Attention: 

Subject: 

Dear Gary, 

Mr. Gary Rohekar 

H332571-TR-00001-CA01 - H-332571 -United States Steel- MINNTAC 

- Line No. 7 NOx Reduction Pilot Study Coen Kiln Burner Offer 

200901-11144- Rev A 

As we have indicated the kiln burner that we propose to supply for the above referenced 

project will not produce more CO as compared with that is being produced by the 

existing burner. The reason is: 

CO Is formed from lack of fast mixing of CO and oxidant (02) and chemical 

l<inetics of the reaction that is highly dependent on temperature and 0 2 

concentration. 

Coen multi-fuel burner is being designed for higher stoichiometric air (1.00) as 

compared with the existing burner which has stoichiometric air of about 0.3 only. 

Hence Coen burner design promotes higher amount of premixing of 02 (oxidant) 

with fuel to reduce CO production. The flame temperature in both cases is high 

enough so the oxidation of CO in not kinetically limited. 

So the new burner design is not kinetic limited for CO oxidation and the increased premixing in the primary zone will reduce CO emissions. 

We hope that in the above we have explained the design feature to minimize CO 

production. 

Very truly yours, 

COEN COMPANY, INCORPORATED 

ldrltbd~ • • 

B.K. Waclhwani 

Product Manager 

Energy Systems Group 

TODD" 

Comllustlon 

Coen Company, Inc. • 100 Foster City Blvd. • Foster City, CA 94404 USA • Tel: 1 (650) 638-0365 • Fax: 1 (530) 638-0355 • 

www.coen.com
§ 89.130 Confirmation of identification. ( a ) *Notification requirement.* No person may operate a foreign registered civil unmanned aircraft with remote identification in the airspace of the United States unless, prior to the operation, the person submits a notice of identification in a form and manner acceptable to the Administrator. The notice of identification must include all of the following: ( 1 ) The name of the person operating the foreign registered civil unmanned aircraft in the United States, and, if applicable, the person's authorized representative.
( 2 ) The physical address of the person operating the foreign registered civil unmanned aircraft in the United States, and, if applicable, the physical address for the person's authorized representative. If the operator or authorized representative does not receive mail at the physical address, a mailing address must also be provided.
( 3 ) The telephone number(s) where the person operating the foreign registered civil unmanned aircraft in the United States, and, if applicable, the person's authorized representative can be reached while in the United States.
( 4 ) The email address of the person operating the foreign registered civil unmanned aircraft in the United States, and, if applicable, the email address of the person's authorized representative.
( 5 ) The unmanned aircraft manufacturer and model name.
( 6 ) The serial number of the unmanned aircraft or remote identification broadcast module.
( 7 ) The country of registration of the unmanned aircraft.
( 8 ) The registration number.
( b ) *Issuance of a Confirmation of Identification.* ( 1 ) The FAA will issue a Confirmation of Identification upon completion of the notification requirements provided in paragraph (a) of this section.
( 2 ) The filing of a notification under paragraph (a) of this section and the Confirmation of Identification issued under paragraph (b)(1) of this section do not have the effect of United States aircraft registration.
( c ) *Proof of notification.* No person may operate a foreign registered civil unmanned aircraft with remote identification in the United States unless the person obtains a Confirmation of Identification under paragraph (b)(1) of this section, maintains such Confirmation of Identification at the unmanned aircraft's control station, and produces the Confirmation of Identification when requested by the FAA or a law enforcement officer.
( d ) *Requirement to maintain current information.* The holder of a Confirmation of Identification must ensure that the information provided under paragraph (a) of this section remains accurate and must update the information prior to operating a foreign registered civil unmanned aircraft in the United States.
1 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

NATIONAL VEHICLE AND FUEL EMISSIONS LABORATORY

2000 TRAVERWOOD ROAD ANN ARBOR, MI 48105

- 2498

OFFICE OF

AIR AND RADIATION

August 5 , 2015

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Total Engine Work Determination

FROM: Christopher Laroo

, Environmental Protection Specialist , OTAQ/A SD

TO: Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium

and Heavy

- Duty Engines and Vehicles

- Phase 2

- Docket EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2014

- 0827

EPA has proposed a revision in the Heavy

- Duty Greenhouse Gas Phase 2 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to 40 CFR 1036.501(g) that would exclude any work performed by the engine during any portion of the duty cycle that has a zero reference value for normalized tor que
, when calculating total engine work.

The intent of this provision is to only include work done by the engine that moves the vehicle down the road and puts brake

- specific CO 2 emissions from engines with and without automatic transmissions on a level pl aying field.

Based on the information available at the time of the proposal, we believe t here would be no effect on the stringency of the CO 2 standard for engine families that are paired with manual or automated manual transmissions because Curb Idle Transmission Torque (CITT) is zero for these transmissions. Thus, for these engines , CITT is set to zero during emission testing, resulting in zero work performed when the engine is idling. We recognize that there could be some impact on effec tive stringency of the CO 2 standard where the engine is paired only with

automatic transmission s . This impact would occur because these engines are certified with an engine manufacturer

- specified CITT which results in work being done by the engine at idle

. This idle work increases the total work done by the engine and as a result, decreases the brake

specific CO 2 emissions when compared to an engine certified with CITT set to zero. If engines paired with automatic transmissions are required to exclude wo rk performed over the cycle where the normalized reference torque is zero, this will cause brake

- specific emission s to increase, putting them on par with the emission results from engines paired with manual

transmissions. However, we do not believe this i mpact would be significant. Because we2 believe this change would not significantly impact stringency, w e did not separately analyze any

cost s or benefit s of this revision

.

As with all other changes proposed in this rulemaking, we will carefully consider any

comments we receive on this issue

.
### MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04

- 12

- 00106

- CR

Kerry FRANCO

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 227th Judicial District Court

, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2011CR5990

Honorable Philip A. Kazen, Jr. , Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Delivered and Filed: April 4, 2012

DIS MISSED

Appellant has filed a motion to dismi ss this appeal by withdrawing his notice of appeal.

The motion is granted

, and this appeal is dismissed. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 42.2(a).

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH
§ 65.91 Inspection authorization. ( a ) An application for an inspection authorization is made on a form and in a manner prescribed by the Administrator.
( b ) An applicant who meets the requirements of this section is entitled to an inspection authorization.
( c ) To be eligible for an inspection authorization, an applicant must— ( 1 ) Hold a currently effective mechanic certificate with both an airframe rating and a powerplant rating, each of which is currently effective and has been in effect for a total of at least 3 years;
( 2 ) Have been actively engaged, for at least the 2-year period before the date he applies, in maintaining aircraft certificated and maintained in accordance with this chapter;
( 3 ) Have a fixed base of operations at which he may be located in person or by telephone during a normal working week but it need not be the place where he will exercise his inspection authority;
( 4 ) Have available to him the equipment, facilities, and inspection data necessary to properly inspect airframes, powerplants, propellers, or any related part or appliance; and
( 5 ) Pass a written test on his ability to inspect according to safety standards for returning aircraft to service after major repairs and major alterations and annual and progressive inspections performed under part 43 of this chapter.
An applicant who fails the test prescribed in paragraph (c)(5) of this section may not apply for retesting until at least 90 days after the date he failed the test. [Doc. No. 1179, 27 FR 7973, Aug. 10, 1962, as amended by Amdt. 65-5, 31 FR 3337, Mar. 3, 1966; Amdt. 65-22, 42 FR 46279, Sept. 15, 1977; Amdt. 65-30, 50 FR 15700, Apr. 19, 1985]
<PAGE>


                                                                    Exhibit 23.1



                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on
Form S-8 pertaining to the 1998 Employee Stock Purchase Plan, The 1998 Stock
Plan and The 1995 Employees' Class B Common Stock Incentive Stock Option Plan of
iEntertainment Network, Inc. of our report dated March 8, 2002, with respect to
the consolidated financial statements of iEntertainment Network, Inc. included
in its Annual Report (Form 10-KSB) for the year ended December 31, 2001, filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

                                                  /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Raleigh, North Carolina
April 1, 2002
#### BLAKELY v. HAMBY et al.

No. 29547.

May 7, 1940.

*102 P. 2d 581.*

Fred M. Hammer and Major J. Parmenter, both of Oklahoma City, for petioner.

Clarence Black, of Oklahoma City, and Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

On the 21st day of August, 1939, the petitioner filed a claim with the State Industrial Commission alleging that he sustained an accidental injury on the 21st day of June, 1939, when his foot slipped and he fell. The State Industrial Commission, by an order entered on the 6th day of August, 1939, denied an award. Petitioner seeks to vacate this order.

The undisputed evidence is that the respondents were the owners and operators of a real estate and rental business. The petitioner was working as a carpenter on a paint job repairing one of the rental houses of respondents when he sustained the accidental injury involved.

The State Industrial Commission did not err in denying an award. Haas v. Ferguson, 184 Okla. 279, 86 P. 2d 986; Harris v. Wallace, 172 Okla. 349, 45 P. 2d 89; Standard Savings & Loan Ass’n v. Whitney, 184 Okla. 190, 86 P. 2d 298; Meyer & Meyer v. Davis, 162 Okla. 16, 18 P. 2d 869; Oklahoma City Federal Savings & Loan Ass’n v. State Industrial Commission, 176 Okla. 43, 54 P. 2d 333.

In Harris v. Wallace, supra, the court said:

> “Where an employer is engaged in a nonhazardous business and employs some one to perform labor for him of a hazardous nature as an incident to such nonhazardous business, but not in the *252conduct of same for pecuniary gain, such employee, if injured, does not come within the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, for subsection 5 of section 13350, O. S. 1931, provides: ‘ “Employment” includes employment only in a trade, business or occupation carried on by the employer for pecuniary gain.’ ”

In Harris v. Wallace, supra, the fact situation is somewhat similar to that in the case at bar. The petitioners therein were the owners and operators of apartment houses, and the claimant in that case was injured while redecorating the interior of an apartment house. See, also, Oklahoma City Federal Savings & Loan Ass’n v. State Industrial Commission, supra. We think the principle announced in the above authorities, and particularly in Harris v. Wallace, supra, applicable here.

The order is sustained.

BAYLESS, C. J., WELCH, V. C. J., and RILEY, HURST, and DANNER, JJ., concur.
#### Edward V. McGovern, Appellant, *v.*The City of New York, Respondent.

(Argued June 1, 1936;

decided July *8,*1936.)

*456
      *Isaac N. Jacobson*for appellant.

*Paul Windels, Corporation Counsel (Alvin McKinley Sylvester, Paxton Blair*and *Nelson Rosenbaum*of counsel), for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs, Crouch, LoughraN and Finch, JJ.
#### § 29.961 Fuel system hot weather operation.

Each suction lift fuel system and other fuel systems conducive to vapor formation must be shown to operate satisfactorily (within certification limits) when using fuel at the most critical temperature for vapor formation under critical operating conditions including, if applicable, the engine operating conditions defined by § 29.927(b)(1) and (b)(2).

[Amdt. 29-26, 53 FR 34217, Sept. 2, 1988]
To; US Department of Transportation 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Ave., S.W. 

Washington DC 20591 

From: Mr. Thaddeus Porebski Jr. 

UAS Project Manager 

LGP Realt}' Of West Milford, LLC, 

14 Split Rock Road 

West Milford, New Jersey 07480 

Dear Michael Cameron, November 10,2015 

Please accept this letter as response to your letter dated July 6, 2015 for requesting further 

infonnation with the requirements of § 11.81, in answering reasons why granting the 

request would be in the public interest. 

Public Interest and Safety 

The planned UA use will increase ground safety for real estate photography. The 

enhanced safet>' and reduced environmental impact achieved using a UA with the 

specifications described by the petitioner and carrying no passengers or crew, rather than 

a manned aircraft of significantly greater proportions, carrying crew in addition to 

flammable fuel, gives the FAA good cause to find that the UA operation enabled by this 

exemption is in the public interest. 

Satisfaction of the criteria provided in Section 333 of the Reform Act of 2012 - size, 

weight, speed, operating capabilities, proximity to airports and populated areas and 

operation within visual line of sight and national security - provide more than adequate 

justification for the grant of the requested exemption allowing commercial operation of 

petitioner's UA in the purposes of commercial real estate photography, pursuant to rules 

of operation. 

The FAA has previously approved members of the DJI Phantom family for real estate 

photography in Exemption Nos. 11191, 11195, 11271, 11295, 11300, and 11318. 

The small weight of the Phantom UA family, ranging from 2.2 lbs. to 2.74 lbs. (1 kg. to 

1.24 kg.), is less than the size envisioned in Section 334(c)(2)(C) of the FAA 

Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, which allows government agencies "to operate 

unmanned aircraft weighing 4.4 pounds or less, if operated -
i. within the hne of sight of the operator; 

i i. less than 400 feet above the ground; 

iii. during daylight conditions; 

iv. within Class G airspace; and 

v. outside of 5 statute miles from any airport, heliport, seaplane base, spaceport, or 

other location with aviation activities." 

Congress's determination that government agencies should be allowed to operate such 

aircraft in these situations, with no further restrictions on location, population density, or 

pilot experience and training, indicates that Congress did not believe that aircraft of this 

size and weight warranted additional attention. 

If any other infonnation or changes are needed with my appliication, 

Please contact me at: 

Mailing address: 

.Mr. Thaddeus Porebski Jr. 

UAS Project Manager 

LGP Realty of West Milford LJ>C 

14 Split Rock Road 

West Milford New Jersey 07480 

Email: lgprealtv(g)optonline.net 

Or Telephone: 973-417-3464 

I thank you for your time and consideration. 

Thaddeus Porebski Jr.
#### § 382.1 What is the purpose of this part?

The purpose of this part is to carry out the Air Carrier Access Act of 1986, as amended. This rule prohibits both U.S. and foreign carriers from discriminating against passengers on the basis of disability; requires carriers to make aircraft, other facilities, and services accessible; and requires carriers to take steps to accommodate passengers with a disability.
#### § 63.2 Certification of foreign flight crewmembers other than pilots.

A person who is neither a United States citizen nor a resident alien is issued a certificate under this part (other than under § 63.23 or § 63.42) outside the United States only when the Administrator finds that the certificate is needed for the operation of a U.S.-registered civil aircraft.

(Secs. 313, 601, 602, Federal Aviation Act of 1958, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1354, 1421, and 1422); sec. 6(c), Department of Transportation Act (49 U.S.C. 1655(c)); Title V, Independent Offices Appropriations Act of 1952 (31 U.S.C. 483(a)); sec. 28, International Air Transportation Competition Act of 1979 (49 U.S.C. 1159(b)))

[Doc. No. 22052, 47 FR 35693, Aug. 18, 1982]
<PAGE>

Exhibit 99.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002:

In connection with this quarterly report of PharmaNetics, Inc. on Form 10-Q for
the period ended March 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on or about the date hereof, the undersigned, in the capacity and on
the date indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to
his/her knowledge:

         1. This 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 this report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of
PharmaNetics, Inc. as of, and for, the periods presented in this report.

Date: May 14, 2003


                                               /s/ John P. Funkhouser
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                                   John P. Funkhouser
                                                Chief Executive Officer