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

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 181 (Wednesday, September 18, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 57446]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-22707]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

 Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience and 
Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits

    Notice of Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience and 
Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits Filed Under Subpart B 
(formerly Subpart Q) during the Week Ending September 7, 2013. The 
following Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience and 
Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits were filed under Subpart B 
(formerly Subpart Q) of the Department of Transportation's Procedural 
Regulations (See 14 CFR 301.201 et. seq.). The due date for Answers, 
Conforming Applications, or Motions to Modify Scope are set forth below 
for each application. Following the Answer period DOT may process the 
application by expedited procedures. Such procedures may consist of the 
adoption of a show-cause order, a tentative order, or in appropriate 
cases a final order without further proceedings.
    Docket Number: DOT- OST-2007-28567.
    Date Filed: September 3, 2013.
    Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion to Modify 
Scope: September 24, 2013.
    Description: Application of American Airlines, Inc. requesting 
renewal of segment 2 of its certificate of public convenience and 
necessity for Route 826, authorizing scheduled foreign air 
transportation of persons, property, and mail between Chicago, Illinois 
and Beijing, China.

Barbara J. Hairston,
Supervisory Dockets Officer, Docket Operations, Federal Register 
Liaison.
[FR Doc. 2013-22707 Filed 9-17-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P
```
/ I

,.-I 1
I i ! ! .; ! i , 8. 1 I i : ! I I ! ii I’ **OFFICE OF**  **THE ATTOXNEY**  **GENERAL OF**  **TEXAS Lh**  **t AUSTIN**  

## :j. . 'III



### .A. . \ 1
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 16**  **- 1714** 

In re: WELLESLEY K. CLAYTON ,

------------------------------
WELLESLEY K. CLAYTON , Debtor

- Appellant ,

v.

M&T BANK , Creditor

– Appellee , and

A. BURTON SHUFORD,

Trustee

– Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina , at Charlotte

. Robert J. Conrad , Jr., District Judge. ( 3:16

- cv
- 00018

- RJC ; 15

- 30573 )

Submitted : November 22, 2016 Decided: November 29, 2016

Before DIAZ and THACKER , Circuit Judges , and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.2 Wellesley K. Clayton , Appellant Pro Se. Lacey Meredith Moore , HUTCHENS LAW FIRM , Charlotte, North Carolina; Allen Burton Shuford , Mint Hill, North Carolina, for Appellee s .

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.3 PER CURIAM:
Wellesley K. Clayton appeals the district court ’ s order denying his motion for reconsideration of a prior order
dismissing as untimely his appeal from the bankruptcy court . We
have reviewed the record and find no re versible error.
Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma
pauperis, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district

court. Clayton v. M&T Bank , No s . 3:16

- cv
- 00018

- RJC ; 15

- 30573
(W.D.N.C. May 2 4 , 2016) . We deny Clayton’s motion for
appointment of counsel and we dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented

in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid
the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT M ER C EDES DE JESUS SANC H EZ DE FR ANC O; e t a l., Pe titione rs, v. ER IC H. HOLDER , Jr., Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde n t . No. 11-71228 Age n c y Nos. A098-589-371

A098-589-372 A098-589-373 M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d

M ay 13, 2014 ** B e fore : C LIFTON, B EA, a nd WATFORD, C irc uit Judge s. M e rc e de s de Je sus Sa

nc h e z de Franc o a

n d he r c hildre n, na

tive s a nd c itiz e ns of El Sa lva dor, pe tition for re v ie w of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls’ (“ B IA” ) orde r dism issing the ir a

ppe a l from

an im m igration judge ’ s (“ IJ” ) de c i sion de ny ing the i r a p plic ation for a sy lum , withholding of re m ova l, a nd prote c tion unde r the 

# FIL ED MAY23 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).C onve ntion Against Torture(“ C AT” ). W e have jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C .

§ 1252. W e re vie wfor substa ntia l e vide n c e the a ge nc y ’ s fa c tua l findings. SantosLe mus v . Muk

ase y , 542 F.3d 738, 742 (9th C ir. 2008). W e de ny in pa rt a nd gra nt in pa rt the pe tition for re vie w , a nd we re m and. Substa ntia l e v i de nc e supports the a ge nc y ’ s de nia l of C AT re lie f be c a use pe titione rs did not de m onstra te tha t it is more like ly

tha n not the y will betorture d if re turne d to El Sa l va dor. Se e Zhe ng v . Ashc roft , 332 F.3d 1186, 1196-97 (9th C ir. 2003). In de ny ing pe titione rs’ a s y lum and withholding of re

m ova l c la im s , the B IA found the y

fa ile d t o e sta

blish pa st pe rse c ution or a fe ar of future pe rse c ution on a c c ount of a prote c te d ground. W he n the IJ a

nd B IA issue d the i r de c isions in this c a se the y did not ha

ve the be n e fit of e ithe r this c ourt’ s de c isions in He nriquezRiv a s v . Holde r , 707 F.3d 1081 (9th C ir. 2013) (e n ba nc ), and C

ordoba v . Holde r , 726 F.3d 1106 (9th C ir. 2013), or theB IA’ s de c isions in Matte r of M-E-V-G- , 26 I. & N. De c . 227 (B IA 2014), a nd Matte r of W

-G-R- , 26 I. & N. De c . 208 (B IA 2014). Thus, wegrant the pe t i tion a s to pe titione rs’ a s y lum an d withholding of re m ova l c la im s, a

nd re m a nd to thea ge nc y

to de te rm ine the im

p a c t, if a ny , of the se de c isions. Se e IN

S v . Ve n tura , 537 U.S. 12, 16-18 (2002) (pe r c uriam ). The pa rtie s sha ll be ar the ir own c osts for this petition for re vie w. PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D in par t; G RANT E D in par t; RE M A NDE D.

1 1 - 7 1 2 2 8 2
§ 95.1 Applicability. ( a ) This part prescribes altitudes governing the operation of aircraft under IFR on ATS routes, or other direct routes for which an MEA is designated in this part. In addition, it designates mountainous areas and changeover points.
( b ) The MAA is the highest altitude on an ATS route, or other direct route for which an MEA is designated, at which adequate reception of VOR signals is assured.
( c ) The MCA applies to the operation of an aircraft proceeding to a higher minimum en route altitude when crossing specified fixes.
( d ) The MEA is the minimum en route IFR altitude on an ATS route, ATS route segment, or other direct route. The MEA applies to the entire width of the ATS route, ATS route segment, or other direct route between fixes defining that route. Unless otherwise specified, an MEA prescribed for an off airway route or route segment applies to the airspace 4 nautical miles on each side of a direct course between the navigation fixes defining that route or route segment.
( e ) The MOCA assures obstruction clearance on an ATS route, ATS route segment, or other direct route, and adequate reception of VOR navigation signals within 22 nautical miles of a VOR station used to define the route.
( f ) The MRA applies to the operation of an aircraft over an intersection defined by ground-based navigation aids. The MRA is the lowest altitude at which the intersection can be determined using the ground-based navigation aids.
( g ) The changeover point (COP) applies to operation of an aircraft along a Federal airway, jet route, or other direct route; for which an MEA is designated in this part. It is the point for transfer of the airborne navigation reference from the ground-based navigation aid behind the aircraft to the next appropriate ground-based navigation aid to ensure continuous reception of signals.
[Doc. No. FAA-2003-14698, 68 FR 16947, Apr. 8, 2003]
[No. 49144-0-I.

Division One.

January 6, 2003.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Eric C. Bushnell, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 00-1-09391-4, Laura Gene Middaugh, J., entered August 24, 2001. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Becker, C.J., concurred in by Appelwick and Schindler, JJ.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.2

                                  AMENDMENT
                                  ---------
                                      OF
                                      --
                             EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
                             --------------------

This Amendment Agreement made this 24/th/ day of November, 1998, between
Kellwood Company (the "Corporation") and William J. McKenna (the "Executive");

WHEREAS, the Corporation and Executive entered into an Employment Agreement
dated December 9, 1992 (the "Agreement"); and

WHEREAS, the Compensation Committee of this company agreed to amend the
Agreement to extend its term for one more year until November 30, 1999; and

WHEREAS, the Corporation and Executive desire to amend the Agreement
accordingly.

NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of their mutual promises and undertakings, the
parties hereby amend the Agreement as follows:

1.   By deleting from paragraph 1 the words "November 30, 1998" and inserting in
     their place "November 30, 1999."

2.   By deleting from paragraph 15 the words "November 30, 1998" and inserting
     in their place "November 30, 1999."

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment of Employment
Agreement the day and year first above written.

                                               KELLWOOD COMPANY
Secretary

/s/ [SIGNATURE ILLEGIBLE]
--------------------------------               By: /s/ James S. Marcus,
                                                   ----------------------------
                                                    James S. Marcus, Chairman,
                                                    Compensation Committee

                                               EXECUTIVE

/s/ [SIGNATURE ILLEGIBLE]                      /s/ William J. McKenna
--------------------------------               --------------------------------
Witness                                        William J. McKenna
# EUR-Lex - 31996D0104 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31996D0104

**96/104/EC: Commission Decision of 29 January 1996 amending Decision 94/360/EC on the reduced frequency of physical checks of consignments of certain products to be imported from third countries (Text with EEA relevance) **

*
Official Journal L 024 , 31/01/1996 P. 0031 - 0031 *

COMMISSION DECISION of 29 January 1996 amending Decision 94/360/EC on the reduced frequency of physical checks of consignments of certain products to be imported from third countries (Text with EEA relevance) (96/104/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Directive 90/675/EEC of 10 December 1990 laying down the principles governing the organization of veterinary checks on products entering the Community from third countries (1), as last amended by Directive 95/52/EC (2) and in particular Article 8 (3) thereof,

Whereas in Decision 94/360/EC (3), as last amended by 95/270/EC (4), the Commission adopted measures on the reduction in frequency of physical checks of consignments of products to be imported form third countries; whereas these frequencies should apply from 1 February 1996, following a review of the frequencies on the basis of the results of all checks on imported consignments of products;

Whereas further progress is necessary on the harmonization of import conditions on imported products;

Whereas further experience of Member States checks on consignments is necessary to carry out the review of the frequencies foreseen in Article 3 (3); whereas it is therefore necessary to defer the date of application of the frequencies to 1 January 1997;

Whereas the measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Veterinary Committee,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

Commission Decision 94/360/EC shall be amended as follows:

- in Article 3 (1) the date of '1 December 1995` is replaced by '1 January 1996`,

- in Article 3 (3) the date of '1 February 1996` is replaced by '15 May 1996`,

- in Article 7, the date of '1 February 1996` is replaced by '1 January 1997`.

Article 2

This Decision is addressed to the Member States.

Done at Brussels, 29 January 1996.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ No L 373, 31. 12. 1990, p. 1.

(2) OJ No L 265, 8. 10. 1995, p. 16.

(3) OJ No L 158, 25. 6. 1994, p. 41.

(4) OJ No L 165, 15. 7. 1995, p. 24.
#### BOWEN v. HAMILTON.

(Decided February 10, 1916.)

Appeal from Elmore Circuit Court.

Heard before Hon. W. W. Pearson.

J. M. Holley, for appellant. T. G. Hilyer, for appellee.

Pelham, P. J.

Affirmed for want of assignment of error.
RE: Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0602 (for the Clean Power Plan for Existing Sources) and EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0630 

(for the Carbon Pollution Standard for Modified Sources 

Hello. My name is Connie Luke and I'm here today to speak in support of EPA's plans to reduce carbon pollution. When I 

was growing up on a farm in Iowa I heard a lot of messages which helped to form my belief that everyone is responsible 

to be good caretakers of our earth. 

• Smoky the Bear said that "Only you can prevent forest fires". 

• Don't be a litterbug signs were posted along the highway. 

Chief Iron Eyes Cody's told me, "People Start Pollution. People can stop it." 

;=-- The indigenouspeople.net website has a quote that sums it all up pretty well: " Treat the earth well. We 

do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. 

Today, we don't see as much trash on the roads Cleveland's Cuyahoga River isn't burning, and new houses are no 

longer built with lead paint and asbestos. We have made some progress on treating the earth well, but when I look at 

the front range foothills from my home in Loveland, I often see how much work is needed to reduce air pollution. That 

brown haze that obscures my view is not what I want my daughter and granddaughter to be breathing. Coughing used 

to be something you heard in the winter when the annual cold/flu bug was spreading. Today, it's impossible to go 

anywhere without hearing people coughing. 

Opponents to the EPA plans will undoubtedly claim that it's too expensive or impossible to the goals being set by EPA. 

They will rail against "the government" getting in their way and throw out the usual threat that jobs will be lost. 

I remember the same arguments being made against the addition of automobile catalytic converters to reduce air 

pollution and against adding safety belts to reduce auto accident deaths. Those changes were too expensive, it would 

put auto makers out of business and people wouldn't be able to afford to buy cars. Yet today, there are still lots of cars 

being sold and when you hear about a car accident, it's generally the people not wearing seat belts who are dead. 

President Kennedy set a goal for us to "send a man to the moon and bring him back alive". Sounded impossible to many 

people — but we did it. 

Last fall, Governor Hickenlooper set a goal for all major roads destroyed by the September floods to be repaired and 

back in service by December 1. Remembering how long it took to repair Hwy 34 after the 1976 flood, I thought that was 

an impossible goal. Yet, through the great teamwork between private, municipal, state, and federal resources those 

roads were open BEFORE December 1. 

The time is now to stop the frightened, defeatist refusal to clean up our air and step up to our responsibility to do what 

we can to lead the world in improving the quality of the earth's atmosphere for future generations. 

I'm tired of hearing the whining about what "we can't do". Things are only impossible until someone does them. 

Thank you. 

Connie Luke 

Email: garyconnie12340msn.com
2013-12-20 11:54 FAA 8172225092 » 2024935142 p 1 

To: Hearing Om:kel Clerk, AGC-430 

Company: Federal Aviation Admlnlstmtlon 

Tetaphono: 

Fax: 2:02A93.5"142 

From: Annja.net Chennault, 

Tille: A gancy Attorney 

Wllhd.rawal of Complaint 

Federal Aviation 

Administration 

Southwl'l!llt Region 

Off!elil of Regional Counsel 

Fort Wor!h, Texas 1a·t:11 

Pi$#15®11/Cour!!HM!:ltm 

2601 Maaellam Boulevard 

FortWmih, ntxas 76131' 

T (6!7 .. 222.50!19} 

F (fli7.:n:tli94t.l5oll:t) 

Fa.cslntlle 

In the Matter of: Mesa Airlines, Inc,- FAA Docket. No!S. 2013-(1'121, 201 S-07:22, 

2013-0846, and 20'13-0847, 

Please Note:: "Thls massage Is Intended only for the use of the individual or enfity to 

which II i!l. addressed and may contain info.rrnatian !hat is privileged, ctmffdantial. and 

e::<:ampt. fmm disclosure under applicable faw," 
2013-12-20 11:59 FAA 8172225 092 » 2024935142 p 8/9 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OfFICE OF HEARtNf~S 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

'"""""""""""""""'"'-''"""""'~~---

In the Matter ot 

~ 

Mesa Airlines, Inc, ., 

FM Docket No. 2013{1847 

FM Case Nn. 2Di 1SW07003'1 

ALJ- Not Yet Asslgned 

WITHDRAWAL OF COMPLAINT 

Tha Federal .Aviation Adrn!nlstra!lon {FAA), in accordance with Section 13.215 of !he 

Rules of Pracllce in FAA Givil Penally Actions, hereby withdraws its comp!aint This 

c,omplaint !s wllMrawn bacaUEe the parties have reached a sa!Uernenl of the case and a 

hearing is no fonger required. Dated lhls 2Qtllday of December 20'13. 

Respectfully submitted, 

ERIC E ANDERSON 

Regional Counsel 

.. . ~·6)'>J Ann enel Chennault . AUomay 

I (817} 222"5011 
2013-12-20 11:59 FAA 8172225092 » 2024935142 p 9/9 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

t hereby certify that the original and ona Cl:tpy of the foregoing Wl!i1drawal t1f Complaint has 

been rna!lad Daoomber20, 2013:, byCertlfloo Mail- Re!urnRecalpt Requested and lax to: 

Hooring Docket 

Federal Avla!ioa Admlnlstra!!on 

800 lndapandanreAvenue, S.W. 

Waslllngton, D.C. 20591 

Atlrt Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC430 

Wifbur Wright Bul!dh1g-Buite 2W100U 

I hereby certify lha.t a copy of the foregoing Withdrawal of Complaint has been rnalled 

December 20, 2013, by Csrtlfted Mati·Return Receipt Raque.1ted, to the fo!lo\1\ing: 

Brian Girtman, Vice-Preaident and General Counsel 

Mesa foJr Group 

410 North 44u1 Street, Suite 700 

Phoenix, Al 85008 

Clnis!.opher P.appaioanou 

Director, Legal Affairs 

Mesa Air Group 

410 North 4tflll Street, Sulte 700 

Ph®n!x, AZ 85008
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 93 (Friday, May 12, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30578-30579]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-11932]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER00-2117-000]


ANP Bellingham Energy Company; Notice of Issuance of Order

May 8, 2000.
    ANP Bellingham Energy Company (ANP Bellingham) submitted for 
filling a rate schedule under which ANP Bellingham will engage in 
wholesale electric power and energy transactions as a marketer. ANP 
Bellingham also requested waiver of various Commission regulations. In 
particular, ANP Bellingham requested that the Commission grant blanket 
approval under 18 CFR Part 34 of all future issuances of securities and 
assumptions of liability by ANP Bellingham.
    On May 4, 2000, pursuant to delegated authority, the Director, 
Division of Corporate Applications, Office of Markets, Tariffs and 
Rates, granted requests for blanket approval under Part 34, subject to 
the following:
    Within thirty days of the date of the order, any person desiring to 
be heard or to protest the blanket approval of issuances of securities 
or assumptions of liability by ANP Bellingham should file a motion to 
intervene or protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 
First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 
and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 
385.211 and 385.214).
    Absent a request for hearing within this period, ANP Bellingham is 
authorized to issue securities and

[[Page 30579]]

assume obligations or liabilities as a guarantor, indorser, surety, or 
otherwise in respect of any security of another person; provided that 
such issuance or assumption is for some lawful object within the 
corporate purposes of the applicant, and compatible with the public 
interest, and is reasonable necessary or appropriate for such purposes.
    The Commission reserves the right to require a further showing that 
neither public nor private interests will be adversely affected by 
continued approval of ANP Bellingham's issuances of securities or 
assumptions of liability.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing motions to 
intervene or protests, as set forth above, is June 5, 2000.
    Copies of the full text of the Order are available from the 
Commission's Public Reference Branch, 888 First Street, NE, Washington, 
DC 20426. The Order may also be viewed on the Internet at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance).

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-11932 Filed 5-11-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
§ 91.307 Parachutes and parachuting. ( a ) No pilot of a civil aircraft may allow a parachute that is available for emergency use to be carried in that aircraft unless it is an approved type and has been packed by a certificated and appropriately rated parachute rigger— ( 1 ) Within the preceding 180 days, if its canopy, shrouds, and harness are composed exclusively of nylon, rayon, or other similar synthetic fiber or materials that are substantially resistant to damage from mold, mildew, or other fungi and other rotting agents propagated in a moist environment; or
( 2 ) Within the preceding 60 days, if any part of the parachute is composed of silk, pongee, or other natural fiber or materials not specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
( b ) Except in an emergency, no pilot in command may allow, and no person may conduct, a parachute operation from an aircraft within the United States except in accordance with part 105 of this chapter.
( c ) Unless each occupant of the aircraft is wearing an approved parachute, no pilot of a civil aircraft carrying any person (other than a crewmember) may execute any intentional maneuver that exceeds— ( 1 ) A bank of 60 degrees relative to the horizon; or
( 2 ) A nose-up or nose-down attitude of 30 degrees relative to the horizon.
( d ) Paragraph (c) of this section does not apply to— ( 1 ) Flight tests for pilot certification or rating; or
( 2 ) Spins and other flight maneuvers required by the regulations for any certificate or rating when given by— ( i ) A certificated flight instructor; or
( ii ) An airline transport pilot instructing in accordance with § 61.67 of this chapter.
( e ) For the purposes of this section, *approved parachute* means— ( 1 ) A parachute manufactured under a type certificate or a technical standard order (C-23 series); or
( 2 ) A personnel-carrying military parachute identified by an NAF, AAF, or AN drawing number, an AAF order number, or any other military designation or specification number.
[Doc. No. 18334, 54 FR 34308, Aug. 18, 1989, as amended by Amdt. 91-255, 62 FR 68137, Dec. 30, 1997; Amdt. 91-268, 66 FR 23553, May 9, 2001; Amdt. 91-305, 73 FR 69530, Nov. 19, 2008]