alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 291.31 Exemptions from the Statute. ( a ) Each section 41102 or 41103 air carrier providing cargo operations in interstate air transportation is, with respect to such transportation, exempted from the following portions of 49 U.S.C. Subtitle VII only if and so long as it complies with the provisions of this part and the conditions imposed herein, and to the extent necessary to permit it to conduct cargo operations in interstate air transportation: ( 1 ) Sections 41310, 41705,
( 2 ) Chapter 415, and
( 3 ) Chapter 419 for all-cargo operations under section 41103.
( b ) Each air carrier providing cargo operations in interstate air transportation under section 41103 of 49 U.S.C. Subtitle VII is exempted from the provisions of section 41106(a) of 49 U.S.C. Subtitle VII to the extent necessary to permit it to compete for and operate cargo charters in interstate air transportation for the Department of Defense under contracts of more than 30 days' duration.
( c ) The Department of Defense is exempted from section 41106(a) of 49 U.S.C. Subtitle VII to the extent necessary to permit it to negotiate and enter into contracts of more than 30 days' duration with any section 41103 carrier for operation of cargo charters in interstate air transportation.
[60 FR 43526, Aug. 22, 1995, as amended by Doc. No. DOT-OST-2014-0140, 84 FR 15933, Apr. 16, 2019]
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Department of Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. RM98-1-000]
 This constitutes notice, in accordance with 18 CFR 385.220I(h), of the receipt of exempt and prohibited off-the-record communications. Order No. 607 (64 FR 51222, September 22, 1999) requires Commission decisional employees, who make or receive an exempt or a prohibited off-the-record communication relevant to the merits of a contested on-the-record proceeding, to deliver a copy of the communication, if written, or a summary of the substance of any oral communication, to the Secretary. Prohibited communications will be included in a public, non-decisional file associated with, but not part of, the decisional record of the proceeding. Unless the Commission determines that the prohibited communication and any responses thereto should become part of the decisional record, the prohibited off-the-record communication will not be considered by the Commission in reaching its decision. Parties to a proceeding may seek the opportunity to respond to any facts or contentions made in a prohibited off-the-record communication, and may request that the Commission place the prohibited communication and responses thereto in the decisional record. The Commission will grant such requests only when it determines that fairness so requires. Exempt off-the-record communications will be included in the decisional record of the proceeding, unless the communication was with a cooperating agency as described by 40 CFR 1501.6, made under 18 CFR 385.2201(e)(1)(v). The following is a list of exempt and prohibited off-the-record communications received in the Office of the Secretary within the preceding 14 days. The documents may be viewed on the Internet at http://www.ferc.fed.us/​online/​rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance). Exempt:1. CP99-392-000
4-5-00
Ms. Grace Bunner.2. CP99-17-000 and CP00-392-000
1-21-00
John Wisniewski.3. CP00-6-000
3-23-00
Ken Huntington.4. Project Nos. 10865 and 11495
5-2-00
Herman Almojera.5. Project No. 3090
3-20-00
Michael J. Bartlett.6. Project No. 3090
4-11-00
Kenneth C. Carr.
 David P. Boergers, Secretary.


[FR Doc. 00-11781  Filed 5-10-00; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
§ 27.1322 Warning, caution, and advisory lights. If warning, caution or advisory lights are installed in the cockpit, they must, unless otherwise approved by the Administrator, be— ( a ) Red, for warning lights (lights indicating a hazard which may require immediate corrective action):
( b ) Amber, for caution lights (lights indicating the possible need for future corrective action);
( c ) Green, for safe operation lights; and
( d ) Any other color, including white, for lights not described in paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section, provided the color differs sufficiently from the colors prescribed in paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section to avoid possible confusion.
[Amdt. 27-11, 41 FR 55470, Dec. 20, 1976]
.•.Mii!»ii:miti'~S'-''''' 

SuperfVind Records Center 

SITE: HOC\X>OOA ^C^ s 

^iht TPdDWFs am i^mmwmdDW o^ncK: 4-isg>^^ 

CommonzveaCtfi of iMassachusetts 

July 22, 2009 

Mr. Daniel Keefe 

USEPA 

1 Congress Street 

Boston, MA 02114 

Dear Mr. Keefe: 

PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 

MARK P. RYAN, PE, PLS 

Director of Public Works cfe Town Engineer 

GARY R SCHORER 

Asst. Supt. of Public Works 

The following is a summary of the review process utilized by the Town of Norwood 

when evaluating and/or approving various public works projects. This process would be 

followed for any work, public or private, on any portion of the Norwood PCBs Superfund 

site, inclusive of the Town-owned Meadow Brook parcel. 

When public or private projects are planned, research is performed at the Town of 

Norwood Engineering Department. In addition, the Water, Sewer and Drain Master 

Plans are typically viewed to determine what utilities are within the area. This Master 

Plan (Attachment 1) has been annotated to reference a Plan of Restricted Area 

(Attachment 2) which details the property use restrictions and special requirements 

pertaining to the Meadow Brook Parcel. These restrictions are further described in a 

Consent Decree between U.S. EPA and the Town of Norwood and which was recorded in 

the Norfolk County Registry of Deeds (Book 26407 Page 129) 

For the abutting streets of Kerry Place, Sixth Street and West Border Road, a copy of the 

Plan of Restricted Areas is located in the corresponding card reference file (for these 

streets, it is File C8-3A). This card reference file is reviewed for utility and plan 

information surrounding the Meadow Brook parcel. 

If any questions arise, please do not hesitate to contact me at 781-762-1240 xl61. 

Mark P. Ryan^FE, FLS 

Director of PublicQiVorks / Town Engineer 

SDMS DocID 475828 

(781)762-1413 

One Lyman Place 

Norwood, MA 02062-0995 Fax #(781)762-9378 

|3

-

(0 

I 

< 

0 

z 

"^niO c41 VA^ 

. ^ CJ .s / 

/
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 7
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
UNAUDITED CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF MEEMIC HOLDINGS, INC.
AND SUBSIDIARIES AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 1999 AND FOR THE NINE MONTHS THEN ENDED.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                       151,130,830
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                                0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                                  0
<EQUITIES>                                           0
<MORTGAGE>                                           0
<REAL-ESTATE>                                        0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                             153,039,645
<CASH>                                       8,421,119
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                           3,808,310
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                       1,580,771
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             270,287,407
<POLICY-LOSSES>                             96,062,732
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                         34,030,354
<POLICY-OTHER>                                       0
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                                0
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                              1,711,859
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                 123,258,128
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               270,287,407
<PREMIUMS>                                  63,304,704
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                          5,967,970
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                            (20,401)
<OTHER-INCOME>                               1,033,992
<BENEFITS>                                  43,954,780
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                          0
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                        13,475,981
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              9,748,131
<INCOME-TAX>                                 2,995,316
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          6,752,815
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                              1,449,442
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 8,202,257
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.25
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.19
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                       0
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                                  0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                    0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                                   0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                     0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                      0
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                              0


</TABLE>
§ 406.119 Computation of time. ( a ) This section applies to any period of time prescribed or allowed by this subpart, by notice or order of the administrative law judge or the FAA decisionmaker, or by any applicable statute.
( b ) The date of an act, event, or default, after which a designated time period begins to run, is not included in a computation of time under this subpart.
( c ) The last day of a time period is included in a computation of time unless it is a Saturday, Sunday, or a legal holiday. If the last day of the time period is a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, the time period runs until the end of the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday.
ERROR — PARTIES.

[Hamilton Circuit Court,

July, 1899.]

Smith, Swing and Giffin, JJ.

#### Belle M. Ervin v. Geo. Mathers.

Petition in Error will be Stricken from Files for want of Parties.

A motion to strike a petition in error from the files must be granted where there were defendants in the original case, other than the defendants in error, who are substantial parties to the controversy, and whose rights were affected by the decree below.

Heard on Error.

*Wilby &*Wald, for the motions.

*F. W. Brow7ie,*contra.

Smith, J.

The defendants in error in this and two other cases move the court to strike the petitions in error from the files on the ground that the plaintiff in error was not prejudiced by the judgments sought to be reversed, and that no substantial right of his has been affected by the judgment. We think that probably this is the case. But there is another ground on which we think it clear that the cases will have to be stricken from the docket — there were other parties, defendants in the original cases, other than the present defendants in error, who are substantial parties to the controversy, and whose rights were affected by the judgment and decree rendered therein, and who were necessary parties to any proceeding to reverse- it, and who have not been made parties to this proceeding in error. It is too late to do so now, the judgment having been rendered December 7, 1898.

The cases will be stricken from the docket for want of j urisdiction of the court to hear them.
§ 406.105 Separation of functions for prosecuting civil penalties and advising the FAA decisionmaker. ( a ) *Agency attorney.* The authority to prosecute civil penalties within the FAA is exercised by an agency attorney in accordance with § 406.9. ( 1 ) The following officials have the authority to act as the agency attorney under this part: The Deputy Chief Counsel; the Assistant Chief Counsel for Enforcement; the Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulations; the Assistant Chief Counsel for Europe, Africa, and Middle East Area Office; each Regional Counsel; and each Center Counsel. This authority may be delegated further.
( 2 ) An agency attorney may not include: ( i ) The Chief Counsel or the Assistant Chief Counsel for Litigation;
( ii ) Any attorney on the staff of the Assistant Chief Counsel for Litigation who advises the FAA decisionmaker regarding an initial decision or any appeal to the FAA decisionmaker; or
( iii ) Any attorney who is supervised in a civil penalty action by a person who provides such advice to the FAA decisionmaker in that action or a factually-related action.
( b ) *Advisors to the FAA decisionmaker.* ( 1 ) The Chief Counsel, the Assistant Chief Counsel for Litigation or an attorney on the staff of the Assistant Chief Counsel for Litigation, will advise the FAA decisionmaker regarding an initial decision or any appeal of an action to the FAA decisionmaker.
( 2 ) An agency employee engaged in the performance of investigative or prosecutorial functions must not, in that case or a factually-related case, participate or give advice in a decision by the administrative law judge or by the FAA decisionmaker on appeal, except as counsel or a witness in the public proceedings.
§ 65.87 Powerplant rating; additional privileges. ( a ) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, a certificated mechanic with a powerplant rating may approve and return to service a powerplant or propeller or any related part or appliance, after he has performed, supervised, or inspected its maintenance or alteration (excluding major repairs and major alterations). In addition, he may perform the 100-hour inspection required by part 91 of this chapter on a powerplant or propeller, or any part thereof, and approve and return it to service.
( b ) A certificated mechanic with a powerplant rating can approve and return to service a powerplant or propeller, or any related part or appliance, of an aircraft with a special airworthiness certificate in the light-sport category after performing and inspecting a major repair or major alteration for products that are not produced under an FAA approval, provided the work was performed in accordance with instructions developed by the manufacturer or a person acceptable to the FAA.
[Doc. No. 1179, 27 FR 7973, Aug. 10, 1962, as amended by Amdt. 65-10, 32 FR 5770, Apr. 11, 1967; Amdt. 65-45, 69 FR 44879, July 27, 2004]
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 relief

under 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
Exhibit 23.1

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the  incorporation  by reference in  Registration  Statement  Nos.
333-104230,  333-82230,  333-60294,  333-53657, 333-43768, and 333-92003 on Form
S-3 and Registration Statement Nos. 333-53765,  333-40472, 333-79151 on Form S-8
of our report dated  February 18, 2004 (which  report  expresses an  unqualified
opinion  and  includes  explanatory  paragraphs  related to (i) the  adoption of
Statement of Financial  Accounting  Standards  ("SFAS") No. 142,  "Goodwill  and
Other  Intangible  Assets"  in Note 1G,  (ii)  the  adoption  of SFAS  No.  148,
"Accounting  for  Stock-Based  Compensation - Transition and Disclosure" in Note
1N,  (iii)  the  adoption  of SFAS No.  143  "Accounting  for  Asset  Retirement
Obligations"  in Note 7,  (iv)  the  adoption  of FASB  Interpretation  No.  46,
"Consolidation of Variable Interest  Entities,  an Interpretation of ARB No. 51"
(FIN 46) in Note 1O,  and (v)  revisions  made to Note 1G and Note 1P related to
the impact of the  cumulative  effect of change in  accounting  principles,  and
reclassifications,  discussed in Note 1B reflected in the Consolidated Statement
of Income and Cash Flows related to the 2001 consolidated  financial  statements
that were audited by other auditors who have ceased  operations and for which we
have expressed no opinion or other form of assurance  other than with respect to
such  disclosures)  appearing  in this  Annual  Report on Form  10-K of  KeySpan
Corporation for the year ended December 31, 2003.



/s/Deloitte & Touche LLP
New York, New York
March 10, 2004
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen,

 Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

November 2, 2016

Order 

November 2, 2016

150643(117)(119)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v

BOBAN TEMELKOSKI,

Defendant-Appellant.

SC: 150643

COA: 313670

Wayne CC: 94-000424-FH

________________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of the Attorney General to extend the 

time for filing a brief amicus curiae in support of plaintiff-appellee is GRANTED. The 

amicus brief submitted on October 31, 2016, is accepted for filing. On further order of 

the Chief Justice, the motion of the Attorney General to participate in oral argument by 

sharing ten minutes of plaintiff-appellee’s allotted time for argument is GRANTED.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-6206

ALONZO KEY,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

GARY MAYNARD, Commissioner of South Carolina

Department of Corrections; CHARLES M. CONDON,

Attorney General of the State of South

Carolina,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Columbia. David C. Norton, District Judge.

(CA-01-4095-1-18BC)

Submitted: March 21, 2002 Decided: April 1, 2002

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Alonzo Key, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Alonzo Key seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying

relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 &

Supp. 2001). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s

opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the

district court. Key v. Maynard, No. CA-01-4095-1-18BC (D.S.C. Jan.

16, 2002). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Order entered October 19, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-15-00173-CV

ROBERT J. PITRE AND JORDAN PITRE, Appellants

V.

JOHN T. SHARP, AS ATTORNEY IN FACT FOR THOMAS H. SHARP, Appellee

On Appeal from the 298th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-14-05074

ORDER

We GRANT appellants’ October 12, 2015 motion for extension of time to file a reply 

brief. We ORDER the brief be filed no later than October 22, 2015.

/s/ CRAIG STODDART 

JUSTICE
Third Amendment to Consulting Agreement



 
Exhibit
10(yy) 
 
THIRD AMENDMENT TO CONSULTING
AGREEMENT 
 
This Third Amendment to
Consulting Agreement (the “Amendment”) is made and executed this 1st day of January, 2003, by and between TLM Holdings Corp., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), and Lee H. Edelstein (the “Consultant”).

 
WHEREAS, the Company and the Consultant are
parties to a Consulting Agreement dated June 24, 1999 (“Agreement”); and 
 
WHEREAS, the parties desire to amend the Agreement in accordance with the provisions hereof; 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants contained herein, the parties hereto agree as follows: 
 
1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct, and are
incorporated herein by reference. 
 
2. The Term of
the Agreement (as referenced within paragraph 4 of the Agreement) shall be extended and shall continue until December 31, 2004, provided, however, that after December 31, 2002, either party may terminate the Agreement after thirty (30) days written
notice of termination. 
 
3. From the date hereof
through December 31, 2004, the Company shall pay the Consultant at the rate of $10,916.66 per month. 
 
4. Consultant shall be permitted to assign the Agreement to LHE Consulting Corp., a Florida corporation (“LHE”), so long as Lee
H. Edelstein is the representative of LHE who personally performs Consultant’s obligations hereunder. The Company shall be permitted to assign the Agreement to Access Worldwide Communications, Inc. 
 
5. Except as specifically amended hereby, the Agreement
remains in full force and effect in accordance with its terms. 
 
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment the day and year first above written. 
 

	 TLM HOLDINGS CORP.
	 	 	 	 
	
	 By:
	 	  

	 	 	 	 	 	  


	 	 	 Chief Executive Officer
	 	 	 	 	 	 Lee H. Edelstein
## IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. PD

- 0875

- 20

JACKIE LETT , App ellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

ON STATE’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

FROM THE THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

BURNET COUNTY

Y EARY , J., filed a dissenting opinion in which S LAUGHTER , J., joined

.

DISSENTING OPINION

For the reasons set out in my dissenting opinion in Dulin v. State , ___ S.W.3d ___,

No s . PD

- 0856

- 19 & PD

- 1857

- 19 , 2021 WL 1202400 (Tex. Crim. App. Mar. 31, 2021), I

respectfully dissent to the Court’s disposition of the State’s petition for discretionary

r eview.

FIL ED: May 12, 2021

DO NOT PUBLISH
#### § 1405.1 Purpose.

These regulations implement Public Law 95-437, the Federal Employees Part-time Career Employment Act of 1978, by establishing a continuing program in the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS) to provide career part-time employment opportunities.