alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
~- ~--~..-~~---------------------------------

, 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

IN THE MATTER OF 

PATHFINDER AVIATION, INC 

FAA DOCKET NO. (TO BE ASSIGNED] 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

Si:? 11 ~Jf2 

HEAA~~G DOCt\t:r 

FDMS NO. FAA-2012-0028 lJ 

COMPLAINANT'S MOTION TO TERMINATE PROCEEDINGS 

On August 29, 2012, the parties reached an agreement to settle this matter, and the warning 

letter called for in that agreement has now been issued. Pursuant to the settlement agreement and 

in accordance with § 13.215 of the Rules of Practice, Complainant hereby withdraws the 

Complaint in this matter and requests that the assigned administrative law judge issue an Order 

terminating these proceedings with prejudice. 

' ~' ) 

Respectfully submitted this -4 t~-day efSeptember 2012, . 

'•, II 

HOWARD L. MARTIN, JR 

Regional Counsel 

By: ,9fJ .6;,. ~.Brown-_ Senior Attorney 
-

,.' 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

Re: Pathfinder Aviation, Inc. 

FAA Docket No. [To be assigned] 

FDMS NO. FAA-2012-0028 

I hereby certify that on this date I served a copy of the COMPLAINANT'S MOTION TO 

TERMINATE PROCEEDINGS by placing it in the United States Mail, postage-prepaid, 

certified mail, return receipt requested, addressed as follows: 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin 

Office of Hearings, M-20; 

r·"'-- ·· '''~-------U.S:-9epartmentm~-ansportation·· 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

Washington, DC 20590 

Michael W. Fell, President 

Pathfinder Aviation, Inc., Respondent 

P.O. Box 375 

Homer, AK 99603 

I further certify that on this date I have served the original and one copy of the 

COMPLAINANT'S MOTION TO TERMINATE PROCEEDINGS by postage;.prepaid, certified 

mail, return receipt requested, addressed as follows: 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1 000 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Office of Regional Counsel 

222 West 7th Avenue, Box 14, AAL-7 

Anchorage, Alaska 99513-7587
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Mount Emily quadrangle, Oregon: 7.5 minute series (topographic)**
 
2012 | 2014 | 2015 | 2017
 
SuDoc Number:A 13.28/6:42124-A 2/
Item Number:0080-G-04 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000932367
 
January 26, 2018
#### The Bank of Genessee *vs.*Field and others.

ALBANY,

March, 1839.

Where under the acta of 1832 and 1835, 'authorizing all or any of the parties to a bill or note to be included in one action, a suit was commenced against three makers of a joint and several note, and an endorser of the same note, and all the parties except one of the makers suffered defaults for not pleading, it ’was held that the plaintiffs might sever the action and take judgment against those of the defendants who had suffered defaults.

Motion, to set aside judgment for irregularity and on the ground of merits. The plaintiffs were the holders of a *joint and several*promissory note, made by Collins, Cogswell and Field, and endorsed by Davis. The makers and the endorsers were sued *in one action*under the statutes of 1832 and 1835. Collins, one of the makers, pleaded; the two other makers, and Davis, the endorser, severally suffered default. The plaintiffs thereupon severed the action, and perfected judgment against the three defendants who had suffered defaults, which Field now moved to set aside.

*D. Burwell,*for the defendant.

*M. T. Reynolds,*for the plaintiffs.

*By the Court,*

Bronson, J.

Where all the parties to a note or bill are joined in one action, the plaintiff, on a default by one party, as the maker, drawer, endorser or acceptor, may sever the action, and proceed to judgment against the party who suffers a default, in the same manner as though he had been sued alone. Laws, 1832, p. 489, §1,4. Laws, 1835, p. 248, § 2. But the action cannot be severed in relation to *joint*contractors. If there be two or more *joint*makers, *644endotsers, &c., the plaintiff cannot take judgment against one, until he is entitled to judgment against all.

The undertaking of the makers in this case was several as well as joint. In general, when a plaintiff sues upon such a contract and includes all of the parties, he has made his election as to the form of the remedy, and the contract for all the purposes of the action is thence forward regarded as joint only, and the plaintiff must succeed against all of the defendants, or none. But the statutes relating to actions on notes and bills, which have introduced many anomalies, in pleadings and practice, authorize an exception in this case to the general rule. The plaintiff by suing all the parties, does not affirm that they are all joint contractors; but only that whether joint or several, he is entitled to one action against all; and then, when he afterwards wishes to sever the action, the statute relieves him from the consequence of the election which was made at the outset.

At the common law the plaintiffs must have sued all of these makers jointly, or each one separately. But under these statutes, the plaintiffs might have sued one, two, or the whole, at their election. They sued all; and then, on a default by two, proceeded to judgment against those two in the same manner as though the third had not been originally joined in the action. This was not irregular. But the defendant, Field, who swears to merits and excuses his default, must be relieved on terms.

Ordered accordingly.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                      5
<CIK>                          0001072702
<NAME>                        Fortune Entertainment Corporation
<MULTIPLIER>                                    1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. Dollars

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                               Dec-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                  JAN-1-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                    JUN-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1.000
<CASH>                                         37,816
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  5,785
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               52,199
<PP&E>                                         106,194
<DEPRECIATION>                                 9,178
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 7,091,870
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          2,276,226
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    38
<COMMON>                                       1,574
<OTHER-SE>                                     4,582,782
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   7,091,870
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  1,069,419
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,069,419)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,069,419)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,069,419)
<EPS-BASIC>                                  (0.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.07)





</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-7667

DARNELL S. HOWARD,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

THOMAS CORCORAN; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE

OF MARYLAND,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CA97-1421-PJM)

Submitted: August 27, 1998 Decided: September 10, 1998

Before NIEMEYER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Randolph O’Neil Gregory, Sr., Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant.

Mary Ellen Barbera, Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court’s order denying relief on

his motion for enlargement of time to file a petition under 28

U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the

reasoning of the district court. Howard v. Corcoran, No. CA-97-

1421-PJM (D. Md. Oct. 8, 1997). 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
#### PARDEE et v GRUBISS

Ohio Appeals, 8th Dist, Cuyahoga Co

No 9966.

Decided June 17, 1929

William J. Corrigan, Cleveland, for Pardee, et.

White, Hammond, Brewer & Curtis, Cleveland, for Grubiss.

Judges HUGHES & JUSTICE (3rd Dist) and WILLIAMS (6th Dist) sitting.

*460WILLIAMS, J.

It has been held in Ohio that a mere divorce decree does not of itself revoke the will of a husband or wife made in favor of the surviving spouse. Charlton vs. Miller, 27 Ohio St., 298. It is, however, an open question in Ohio whether such revocation will be effected by a divorce and full settlement of property rights.

Sec. 10555 GC after prescribing certain specific ways of revoking wills, provides that

> “nothing herein contained shall prevent the revocation implied by law from subsequent changes in the condition or circumstances of the testator.”

Similar statutes exist in many of the states and are only declarative of the common law. 4 Kent’s Commentaries, 521. The matter, therefore, does not rest wholly on statute.

By the great weight of authority, where a divorce is coupled with a settlement of property rights, there is an implied revocation of a prior will in favor of the divorced spouse, whether there is such a statute or not.

Wirth vs. Wirth, 149 Mich., 687, 113 N. W., 306; Donaldson vs. Hall, 106 Minn., 50220 L. R. A., N. S., 1073; 130 Am. State Rep., 621; 119 N. W., 219; 16 Annotated Gases, 541, Lansing vs. Haynes, 95 Mich., 16 35 Am. State Rep., 545 54 Minn. 502; Battis’ Will, 143 Wis., 234, 139 Am. St. Rep., 1101, 126 N. W., 9; In re Martin’s estate, 109 Neb., 289, 190 N. W., 872.

Under the authorities cited the divorce and settlement are held to work a revocation of- the will only as to the bequest or devise to the divorced spouse. The judgment of the trial court sets aside the whole will in the instant case. Anton Grubiss, however, is the only plaintiff in error and no cross petition in error has been filed. It is true that Helen Grubiss Pardee, one of the children, is named as plaintiff in error, and the averments and prayer of the petition in error purport to be those of plaintiffs in error, but no plaintiff in error, except Anton Grubiss, signs the petition in error either personally or by attorney. The children take a greater estate as heirs at law than they would as devisees under the will, for as heirs at law they receive a fee in the real estate which is not subject to the life estate of Anton Grubuss. If any of the children were here as plaintiff in error or by cross petition in error, we could not say that prejudice resulted to any of them by the judgment below under the circumstances.

We also call attention to the annotation in 25 A. L. R., 49, where the authorities are collected.

The court saw fit to submit the question whether the will was revoked to the jury, and the jury found that it had been revoked and that it was not the last will and testament of the deceased • testator.

There was no reversible error committed by the trial court and the judgment entered on the verdict does substantial justice between the parties.

The judgment will therefore be affirmed.

Hughes and Justice, JJ, concur.
Support Documents for 

Significant New Use Rule (SNUR) on 

Premanufacture Notice (PMN) 

P-02-833 

EPA Docket EPA-HQ-OPPT-2011-0577 

EPA SANITIZED Page 1 of 17
Index

A-001 Structure Activity Team (SAT) Report for 

PMN P-02-833 

A-002 Initial Review Engineering Report for 

PMN P-02-833 

A-003 Initial Review Exposure Report for 

PMN P-02-833 

EPA SANITIZED Page 2 of 17
A-001 

Structure Activity Team (SAT) Report

for PMN P-02-833 

EPA SANITIZED Page 3 of 17
 

 

 

 

 

EPA SANITIZED Page 4 of 17
 

 

 

 

 

EPA SANITIZED Page 5 of 17
EPA SANITIZED Page 6 of 17
EPA SANITIZED Page 7 of 17
EPA SANITIZED Page 8 of 17
 

EPA SANITIZED Page 9 of 17
 

EPA SANITIZED Page 10 of 17
A-002 

Initial Review Engineering Report

for PMN P-02-833 

EPA SANITIZED Page 11 of 17
REVISED on 3-31-03 

This revision is based on the additional information from the company 

dated March 18, 2003. Changes are in bold. 

PMN: 02-0833 ENGINEER: Jon/JB 

PV (kg/yr): (Import only) SUBMITTER: Ciba Specialty 

Chemicals Corporation 

USE: Polymerization initiator and regulator for thermoplastics and 

elastomers. 

OTHER USES: none found 

MSDS: Yes Label: No 

General Eqp.: Provide ventilation, wear coveralls, wear 

chemical goggles, wear impervious gloves. 

Respirator: Wear dust mask or respirator in conditions where 

dust arises from use. 

Health Effects: None, inhalation toxicity not completed 

TLV/PEL (PMN or raw materials): Not established 

CRSS: 

Chemical Category: 

VP: <1E-6 torr @25C 

S-H2O: 0 004 g/L 

MW: 

Phys State: Neat: Solid

Proc/Form: ; 

End Use: 

Consumer Use: No 

SAT (concerns): 

Migration to Groundwater = negligible 

PBT Potential = P2B2T1 

Health: 1-2 (inhalation, dermal, ingestion, drinking water) 

Eco: 3 (all releases to water) 

OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE RATING: 1-2 

EPA SANITIZED Page 12 of 17
REVISED (3-31-03) ENGINEERING REPORT Page # 2 

PMN: 02-0833 

ASSUMPTIONS:

POLLUTION PREVENTION CONSIDERATIONS: None listed 

EXPOSURE-BASED REVIEW No 

EPA SANITIZED Page 13 of 17
INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT Page # 3 

PMN: 02-0833 

PROC/USE: 

Site/Location: (submission) 

Days/yr: (submission) 

Process Description: 

Note: 

ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASES (Eqpt. cleaning, container residue, etc.): 

 

Basis: 

 

 

EPA SANITIZED Page 14 of 17
INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT Page # 4 

PMN: 02-0833 

PROC/USE: con’t 

OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE 

 Tot. # of workers: 

 Days/yr: (submission) 

INHALATION: 

150 mg/day over 

 Number of w

Basis: 

 

 

 

Dermal: c : 3,100 mg/day 

 

 Basis: 

EPA SANITIZED Page 15 of 17
A-003 

Initial Review Exposure Report

for PMN P-02-833 

EPA SANITIZED Page 16 of 17
 

 

EPA SANITIZED Page 17 of 17
§ 61.412 Do I need additional training to provide instruction on control and maneuvering an airplane solely by reference to the instruments in a light-sport aircraft based on VH? To provide flight training under § 61.93(e)(12) on control and maneuvering an airplane solely by reference to the flight instruments for the purpose of issuing a solo cross-country endorsement under § 61.93(c)(1) to a student pilot seeking a sport pilot certificate, a flight instructor with a sport pilot rating must: ( a ) Hold an endorsement required by § 61.327(b);
( b ) Receive and log a minimum of 1 hour of ground training and 3 hours of flight training from an authorized instructor in an airplane with a VH greater than 87 knots CAS or in a full flight simulator, flight training device, or aviation training device that replicates an airplane with a VH greater than 87 knots CAS; and
( c ) Receive a one-time endorsement in his or her logbook from an instructor authorized under subpart H of this part who certifies that the person is proficient in providing training on control and maneuvering solely by reference to the flight instruments in an airplane with a VH greater than 87 knots CAS. This flight training must include straight and level flight, turns, descents, climbs, use of radio navigation aids, and ATC directives.
[Amdt. 61-142, 83 FR 30280, June 27, 2018]
Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed October 1, 2024.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-24-00173-CV

DEVONTE DAVIS AND NUR ALMUSAWI, Appellants

V.

HUTCH STILGENBAUER, M.D., Appellee

On Appeal from the 270th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2023-70651

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This appeal is from a judgment signed February 26, 2024. The court reporter 

indicated on April 8, 2024 that there was not a reporter’s record. The clerk’s record 

was filed June 18, 2024. No brief was filed.

On September 4, 2024, we issued a notice stating that unless appellants filed 

a brief on or before September 16, 2024, the appeal was subject to dismissal without 

further notice for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 4.1(a), 42.3(b).
2

Appellants filed no brief or other response. We dismiss the appeal.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Jewell, Bourliot, and Zimmerer.
a6099028ex10_92c.htm


     

    
      Exhibit
10.92c

    

     

    
      Summary of
2009 Incentive Compensation Plan

      


      On August
13, 2009 the Compensation Committee (the "Committee") of the Board of Directors
of Ore Pharmaceuticals Inc. (the "Company") approved the Company's Incentive
Compensation Plan (the "Plan") for 2009.  The Plan establishes
corporate and individual goals for eligible officers, including the current
Chief Financial Officer, but excluding in 2009 the Chief Executive Officer,
whose potential bonus is governed by terms in his employment
agreement.  The Plan provides percentage weightings for each eligible
officer in three areas: corporate financial performance, corporate operational
performance and individual executive performance within such executive's areas
of responsibility.  Subject to the discretion of the Committee as to
final amount, eligible officers may earn a bonus of up to 40% of their
respective salaries.  In the case of officers serving less than a full
year in 2009, the bonus amounts will be prorated.

      


      The
Committee intends to use the Plan as a guide to determine what level of bonus,
if any, will be paid to any of the eligible executives for their performance in
2009 based upon its judgment as to the level of achievement of each goal as of
year-end 2009.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 94 (Monday, May 15, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 30990]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-12062]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding 
Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for 
approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 
1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR part 225), and all other 
applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company 
and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the 
power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the 
banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, 
including the companies listed below.
    The applications listed below, as well as other related filings 
required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the 
Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The application also will be available 
for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested 
persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated 
in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the 
acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether 
the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards 
in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, 
nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States. 
Additional information on all bank holding companies may be obtained 
from the National Information Center website at www.ffiec.gov/nic/.
    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these 
applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the 
offices of the Board of Governors not later than June 8, 2000.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis (JoAnne F. Lewellen, 
Assistant Vice President) 90 Hennepin Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota 
55480-0291:
    1. JDOB, Inc., Sandstone, Minnesota; to acquire at least 80 percent 
of the voting shares of First National Bank of Hinckley, Hinckley, 
Minnesota, a de novo bank.

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, May 9, 2000.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Associate Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 00-12062 Filed 5-12-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
§ 29.1325 Static pressure and pressure altimeter systems. ( a ) Each instrument with static air case connections must be vented to the outside atmosphere through an appropriate piping system.
( b ) Each vent must be located where its orifices are least affected by airflow variation, moisture, or foreign matter.
( c ) Each static pressure port must be designed and located in such manner that the correlation between air pressure in the static pressure system and true ambient atmospheric static pressure is not altered when the rotorcraft encounters icing conditions. An anti-icing means or an alternate source of static pressure may be used in showing compliance with this requirement. If the reading of the altimeter, when on the alternate static pressure system, differs from the reading of altimeter when on the primary static system by more than 50 feet, a correction card must be provided for the alternate static system.
( d ) Except for the vent into the atmosphere, each system must be airtight.
( e ) Each pressure altimeter must be approved and calibrated to indicate pressure altitude in a standard atmosphere with a minimum practicable calibration error when the corresponding static pressures are applied.
( f ) Each system must be designed and installed so that an error in indicated pressure altitude, at sea level, with a standard atmosphere, excluding instrument calibration error, does not result in an error of more than ±30 feet per 100 knots speed. However, the error need not be less than ±30 feet.
( g ) Except as provided in paragraph (h) of this section, if the static pressure system incorporates both a primary and an alternate static pressure source, the means for selecting one or the other source must be designed so that— ( 1 ) When either source is selected, the other is blocked off; and
( 2 ) Both sources cannot be blocked off simultaneously.
( h ) For unpressurized rotorcraft, paragraph (g)(1) of this section does not apply if it can be demonstrated that the static pressure system calibration, when either static pressure source is selected, is not changed by the other static pressure source being open or blocked.
(Secs. 313(a), 601, 603, 604, and 605 of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 (49 U.S.C. 1354(a), 1421, 1423, 1424, and 1425); and sec. 6(c), Dept. of Transportation Act (49 U.S.C. 1655(c)))
[Doc. No. 5084, 29 FR 16150, Dec. 3, 1964, as amended by Amdt. 29-14, 42 FR 36972, July 18, 1977; Amdt. 29-24, 49 FR 44439, Nov. 6, 1984]