alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 18.615 Exclusion of witnesses.

At the request of a party the judge shall order witnesses excluded so that they cannot hear the testimony of other witnesses, and the judge may make the order of the judge's own motion. This rule does not authorize exclusion of a party who is a natural person, or an officer or employee of a party which is not a natural person designated as its representative by its attorney, or a person whose presence is shown by a party to be essential to the presentation of the party's cause.
**U.S. Department of** 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E.

**Transportation** Wa shington, DC 20590 Office of the Secretary of Transportation **NOTICE OF APPROVAL OF IATA AGREEMENT(S)** This serves as official notice of th e Department’s approval and grant of antitrust immunity to the d ocketed IATA agreement(s) listed below during the weekl y period ending February 3 , 20 1 2
. Approval of an y individual IATA agreement is subject, where applicable, to any conditions previously

i mposed b y the Department.
**DOCKET NUMBER DATE FILED**  **DATE APPROVED** * OST
- 20 11
- 00 8 7 0 4 /21 / 1 1 0 2 / 02 / 1 2 OST
- 201 2
- 00 15 0 1 /27 /1 2 02/ 01 /1 2

* U.S. and Foreign Agreement Action taken b y: Paul L . Gr etch Director, O ffice of International Aviation by authority assigned under 14 CFR 385 An electronic version of this document is available

on the World Wide Web at http:// www.regulations.gov
<PAGE>
<TABLE>
                                                                                                 EXHIBIT 12

                             KENTUCKY POWER COMPANY
                Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
                        (in thousands except ratio data)
                                   <CAPTION>
                                                                     Year Ended December 31,
                                                          1996       1997      1998      1999      2000
<S>                                                     <C>        <C>       <C>       <C>       <C>
Fixed Charges:
  Interest on First Mortgage Bonds . . . . . . . . .    $14,914    $14,867   $13,936   $12,712   $ 9,503
  Interest on Other Long-term Debt . . . . . . . . .      6,446      8,597    12,188    13,525    16,367
  Interest on Short-term Debt. . . . . . . . . . . .      2,849      3,034     2,455     2,552     3,295
  Miscellaneous Interest Charges . . . . . . . . . .        555        559       634       869     2,523
  Estimated Interest Element in Lease Rentals. . . .        800      1,700     1,500     1,200     1,700
       Total Fixed Charges . . . . . . . . . . . . .    $25,564    $28,757   $30,713   $30,858   $33,388

Earnings:
  Net Income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .    $16,973    $20,746   $21,676   $25,430   $20,763
  Plus Federal Income Taxes. . . . . . . . . . . . .      5,119      9,415     9,785    12,993    17,884
  Plus State Income Taxes. . . . . . . . . . . . . .        598      2,190     2,096     2,784     2,457
  Plus Fixed Charges (as above). . . . . . . . . . .     25,564     28,757    30,713    30,858    33,388
       Total Earnings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .    $48,254    $61,108   $64,270   $72,065   $74,492

Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges . . . . . . . . .       1.88       2.12      2.09      2.33      2.23
</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

EASTERN DISTRICT 

CARL ROBINSON, 

 Petitioner 

 v. 

PHILADELPHIA COURT OF COMMON 

PLEAS, 

 Respondent 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 59 EM 2015 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 8th day of July, 2015, the Application for Leave to File Original 

Process is GRANTED, the Petition for Writ of Mandamus and/or Extraordinary Relief is 

GRANTED to the extent it seeks mandamus relief, and the common pleas court is 

DIRECTED to dispose of the pending petition within 90 days.
§ 1614.407 Civil action: Title VII, Age Discrimination in Employment Act, Rehabilitation Act, Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, and Pregnant Workers Fairness Act. A complainant who has filed an individual complaint, an agent who has filed a class complaint or a claimant who has filed a claim for individual relief pursuant to a class complaint is authorized under title VII, the ADEA, the Rehabilitation Act, Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, and the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act to file a civil action in an appropriate United States District Court: ( a ) Within 90 days of receipt of the agency final action on an individual or class complaint;
( b ) After 180 days from the date of filing an individual or class complaint if agency final action has not been taken;
( c ) Within 90 days of receipt of the Commission's final decision on an appeal; or
( d ) After 180 days from the date of filing an appeal with the Commission if there has been no final decision by the Commission.
( e ) After filing an appeal with the Commission from an agency final action, the complainant, class agent, or class claimant may withdraw the appeal and file a civil action within 90 days of receipt of the agency final action. If the complainant, class agent, or class claimant files an appeal with the Commission from a final agency action and more than 90 days have passed since receipt of the agency final action, the appellant may file a civil action only in accordance with paragraph (c) or (d) of this section.
( f ) After filing a request for reconsideration of a Commission decision on an appeal, the complainant, class agent, or class claimant may withdraw the request and file a civil action within 90 days of receipt of the Commission's decision on the appeal. If the complainant, class agent, or class claimant files a request for reconsideration of a Commission decision on an appeal and more than 90 days have passed since the appellant received the Commission's decision on the appeal, the appellant may file a civil action only in accordance with paragraph (c) or (d) of this section.
( g ) A complainant, class agent, or class claimant who follows the procedures described in paragraph (e) or (f) of this section shall be deemed to have exhausted his or her administrative remedies.
[57 FR 12646, Apr. 10, 1992. Redesignated and amended at 64 FR 37659, July 12, 1999; 85 FR 35561, June 11, 2020; 89 FR 11171, Feb. 14, 2024]
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: AgancyAttorney

Wllhd.rawal of Complaint 

## Federal 

## Aviation Administration
Southwl'l!llt Region Off!elil of Regional Counsel FortWor!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 ofthe individual orenfity 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 DocketNo. 2013{1847 FM Case Nn. 2Di 1SW07003'1 ALJ- NotYetAsslgned


### WITHDRAWAL OF COMPLAINT Tha Federal .Aviation Adrn!nlstra!lon {FAA), in accordance with Section 

### 13.215 of !he Rules of Pracllce in FAA Givil PenallyActions, herebywithdraws its 

### comp!aint This c,omplaint !s wllMrawn bacaUEe the parties have reached asa!Uernenl ofthe case and a hearing is no fonger required. Dated lhls 2Qtllday of December20'13. Respectfullysubmitted, ERIC E ANDERSON Regional Counsel

.. .**~·6)'>J** 

### Ann enel Chennault

. AUomay I (817} 222"50112013-12-20 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 laxto: Hooring Docket 

### Federal Avla!ioa Admlnlstra!!on 800 lndapandanreAvenue, S.W. Waslllngton, D.C. 20591 Atlrt Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC430 WifburWright Bul!dh1g-Buite 

### 2W100U I hereby certify lha.t a copy of the foregoing Withdrawal of Complaint has been rnalled 

### December20, 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 

### 44u1Street, 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
#### § 1691.2 Exchange of information.

EEOC and agencies shall share any information relating to the employment policies and practices of recipients of Federal financial assistance that may assist each office in carrying out its responsibilities. Such information shall include, but not necessarily be limited to, affirmative action programs, annual employment reports, complaints, investigative files, conciliation or compliance agreements, and compliance review reports and files.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 23







                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS



We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (Registration Statement Nos. 33-54879, 33-48490,
33-48673, 33-52797, 33-52799 and 33-61351) and the Prospectus constituting part
of the Registration Statement on Form S-3 (Registration Statement No. 33-74665)
of Kmart Corporation of our report dated March 1, 1999 appearing on page 21 of
the Annual Report to Shareholders which is incorporated by reference in this
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended January 27, 1999.




PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Detroit, Michigan
April 12, 1999
#### FIRST TRUST & SAVINGS BANK v McCAUSLAND et.

Ohio Appeals, 9th Dist, Summit Co

No 1609.

Decided May 9, 1929

Doolittle, Foust & Holden, Akron, for Savings Bank.

Loyd R. Read, Akron, for McCausland et.

WASHBURN, J.

The principal claim of the administrator is that, “granting all the allegations of the answer and all that was testified to by any of the defendants’ witnesses, we have altogether nothing more or less than ,an effort on the part of James Fee to make a testamentary disposition of his assets without making a will.”

It is elemental that a testamentary disposition of property can be made only by will executed as required by law, and if the transaction plead and proved in this case was such a disposition of property, the judgment in this case is clearly erroneous, as the court denied to the administrator any sort of right or interest in said note.

.The transaction did not constitute a gift of the note, for no delivery was made or contemplated during the life of James Fee; the title to the note was to and did remain in James Fee until his death, when it passed to his administrator.

The McCauslands were not to have any interest or rights in the note in any event until after the death of James Fee, and then only in the event of his dying before the note became due; and if James Fee outlived the due date of the note, the Mc-Causlands were to pay the same.

The McCauslands were not to do anything until the death of James Fee and then only in the event of his dying before a certain time; there w,as no present disposition of the note but there was to be, under a certain contingency, a disposition after his death.

It cannot be said that there was a present disposition which might become inoperative if J,ames_ Fee lived until the note became due, because no change of possession of the note was made or contemplated during the life of James Fee; it is apparent that no disposition was attempted to be made which, under any circumstances, was to take effect until on or after the death of James Fee; indeed, his death before a certain time was a condition precedent to any disposition of the note.

The transaction was, it seems to us, clearly testamentary in character, and because not made in conformity to the law relating to wills, w,as ineffectual as a disposition of the note and did not prevent the title of the note passing to the administrator, or affect the administrator’s right to collect the same. (Phipps v. Hope. 16 OS. 566.

Whatever rights accrued to the McCauslands by the transaction, were enforceable against the estate of James Fee; whether they are still enforceable is not now before this court.

Funk, PJ, and Pardee, J, concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4979 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4979

               To terminate the Department of Education.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            December 8, 2020

   Mr. Paul introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
               To terminate the Department of Education.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. TERMINATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION.

    The Department of Education shall terminate on December 31, 2020.
                                 <all>
```
#### § 296.5 Agency relationships.

An indirect cargo air carrier may act as agent of a shipper, or of a direct air carrier that has authorized such agency, rather than as an air carrier, if it expressly reserves the option to do so when the shipment is accepted.
**Exhibit 15.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in theRegistration Statements on Form S-8 (File Nos.33-84904, 33-98132, 33-99134, 33-99140, 33-99150, 33-99154, 333-109200, 333-118678, 333-127976 and 333-138316) of our report dated June 27, 2008 relating to the financial statements and the effectivenessof internal control over financial reporting which appear in Kyocera’s Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended March 31, 2008. 

/s/    Kyoto Audit Corporation 

Kyoto, Japan 

June 27, 2008
#### § 16.301 Filing and service of documents.

Any application for an award or other pleading or document related to an application shall be filed with the adjudicative officer and served on all parties to the proceeding in the same manner as other pleadings in the proceeding.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

TONY DOUSE, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee.

No. 4D16

- 1762

[ October 4, 2017 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Charles Burton, Judge; L.T. Case No. 50

- 2014

- CF

- 012651

- AXXX

- MB.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Tom Wm. Odom, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Anesha Worthy, Assistant Attorney G eneral, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

C IKLIN
, J.

The defendant was convicted of sexual battery. The defenda nt raises two issues on appeal , each relating to the inadvert ent disclosure of inadmissible evidence to the jury through a mistakenly unredacted recording of a police

interview

. We find both argument s to be without merit and we affirm, but we write to address defense counsel ’ s admission at trial that he failed to provide

effective assistance.

To establish a claim of ineffective assi stance of counsel, a defendant “ must

demonstrate: (1) that counsel ’ s performance was deficient; and (2) a reasonable probability that the result of the proceeding would have been different absent the deficient performance. ” Routly v. State , 590 So. 2d 397, 401 (Fla. 1991) (citing Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668 (1984); Eutzy v. State , 536 So. 2d 1014, 1015 (Fla. 1988 ) ). Within the ineffective assistance analysis, a deficiency in performance cannot be presumed from counsel ’ s mere adm ission that he or

she was ineffective. See id . at 401 n.4 (“[A] n attorney ’ s own admission that he or she was ineffective is of little persuasion in these proceedings.” (quoting Kelley

v. State , 569 So. 2d 754, 761 (Fla. 1990) ))

. This is because the “ admission that

he or she was ineffective is not evidence of counsel ’ s performance

. . . . ” Marek

v. State , 14 So. 3d 985, 1000 (Fla. 2009) ; see also Ibar v. State , 190 So. 3d 1012,1022 (Fla. 2016) (finding counsel was ineffective but emphasizing that finding was not based on counsel’s admission of ineffective assistance).

Because an admission by counsel that he or she was ineffective cannot form

the basis of an ineffective assistance of counsel c laim, Marek , 14 So. 3d at 1000

, we caution counsel against rely ing on an attempt to fall on counsel ’ s own sword

in order to rescue his or her client from a deficient performance.

Affirmed.

K LINGENSMITH

, J., and M ETZGER

, E LIZABETH A ., Associate Judge, concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
JEB SMITH would like to amend his Section 333 exemption request, ID numbered FAA-2015-

3672-0001. JEB SMITH seeks to expand his exemption to closed set motion picture and 

television filming. Seeing that all other conditions remain the same in his exemption, JEB 

SMITH has attached his MPTOM for review.

JEB SMITH would also like to add several aircraft to the approved list of aircraft. All aircraft will 

be registered in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 44103, Registration of Aircraft, as well as 14 C.F.R 

Part 47, Aircraft Registration, and marked in accordance with 14 C.F.R. Part 45, Identification 

and Registration Marking. All relevant manuals, maintenance logs, etc. will be kept in 

accordance with his original Section 333 exemption request.

DJI Phantom 3

The DJI Phantom 3 is a vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) Unmanned Aircraft (UA) with a 

Ground Control Station (GCS) utilizing electronic tablet or smart phone systems. The DJI 

Phantom 3 has a maximum gross weight of approximately 2.8 pounds, while having a length of 

16 inches width of 16 inches, height of 8.5 inches, and a maximum speed of approximately 31 

knots. The DJI Phantom 3 is equipped with four main rotors; driven by Lithium Polymer battery 

powered electric motors. The DJI Phantom 3 that will be operated by JEB SMITH will be 

registered in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 44103, Registration of Aircraft, as well as 14 C.F.R Part 

47, Aircraft Registration, and marked in accordance with 14 C.F.R. Part 45, Identification and 

Registration Marking.

Freefly Alta

The Freefly Alta is a vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) Unmanned Aircraft (UA) with a Ground 

Control Station (GCS) utilizing electronic remote control systems. The Freefly Alta has a 

maximum gross weight of approximately 25 pounds, while having a length of 39 inches width of 

39 inches, height of 18 inches, and a maximum speed of approximately 30 knots
#### National Bank of Jacksonville, Appellant, v. John J. Dunne, et al., Appellee.

Appeal dismissed on motion of counsel for Appellees.

L. R. Milton, for Appellant;

*862Clarke & Clarke, Fred T. Myers, F. C. Alderman and John W. Burton, for Appellees.
§ 1608.8 Adherence to court order. Parties are entitled to rely on orders of courts of competent jurisdiction. If adherence to an Order of a United States District Court or other court of competent jurisdiction, whether entered by consent or after contested litigation, in a case brought to enforce a Federal, State, or local equal employment opportunity law or regulation, is the basis of a complaint filed under title VII or is alleged to be the justification for an action which is challenged under title VII, the Commission will investigate to determine: ( a ) Whether such an Order exists and
( b ) Whether adherence to the affirmative action plan which is part of the Order was the basis of the complaint or justification.
If the Commission so finds, it will issue a determination of no reasonable cause. The Commission interprets title VII to mean that actions taken pursuant to the direction of a Court Order cannot give rise to liability under title VII.
<PAGE>

                                                                     Exhibit 24


                                POWER OF ATTORNEY

              Annual Report on Form 10-K for the Fiscal Year Ended
                                December 31, 2001


The  undersigned  directors of the following  companies (each  respectively  the
"Company")

         Company                          State of Incorporation

  AEP Generating Company                           Ohio
  Appalachian Power Company                      Virginia
  Central Power and Light Company                 Texas
  Columbus Southern Power Company                  Ohio
  Kentucky Power Company                         Kentucky
  Ohio Power Company                               Ohio
  Public Service Company of Oklahoma             Oklahoma
  Southwestern Electric Power Company            Delaware
  West Texas Utilities Company                    Texas

do hereby constitute and appoint E. LINN DRAPER,  JR., ARMANDO A. PENA and SUSAN
TOMASKY,  and each of them, their  attorneys-in-fact  and agents, to execute for
them,  and in their names,  and in any and all of their  capacities,  the Annual
Report of the  Company on Form 10-K,  pursuant  to Section 13 of the  Securities
Exchange Act of 1934,  for the fiscal year ended  December 31, 2001, and any and
all  amendments  thereto,  and to file the same,  with all exhibits  thereto and
other  documents  in  connection  therewith,  with the  Securities  and Exchange
Commission,  granting unto said  attorneys-in-fact and agents, and each of them,
full power and  authority  to do and  perform  every act and thing  required  or
necessary to be done,  as fully to all intents and  purposes as the  undersigned
might or could do in  person,  hereby  ratifying  and  confirming  all that said
attorneys-in-fact  and agents,  or any of them,  may  lawfully do or cause to be
done by virtue hereof.

     IN WITNESS  WHEREOF,  the undersigned  have signed these presents this 21st
day of February, 2002.


   /s/ E. Linn Draper, Jr.           /s/ Thomas V. Shockley, III


   /s/ Henry W. Fayne                /s/ Susan Tomasky


   /s/ Armando A. Pena               /s/ J. H. Vipperman


   /s/ Robert P. Powers
§ 29.1415 Ditching equipment. ( a ) Emergency flotation and signaling equipment required by any operating rule of this chapter must meet the requirements of this section.
( b ) Each liferaft and each life preserver must be approved. In addition— ( 1 ) Provide not less than two rafts, of an approximately equal rated capacity and buoyancy to accommodate the occupants of the rotorcraft; and
( 2 ) Each raft must have a trailing line, and must have a static line designed to hold the raft near the rotorcraft but to release it if the rotorcraft becomes totally submerged.
( c ) Approved survival equipment must be attached to each liferaft.
( d ) There must be an approved survival type emergency locator transmitter for use in one life raft.
[Doc. No. 5084, 29 FR 16150, Dec. 3, 1964, as amended by Amdt. 29-8, 36 FR 18722, Sept. 21, 1971; Amdt. 29-19, 45 FR 38348, June 9, 1980; Amdt. 27-26, 55 FR 8005, Mar. 6, 1990; Amdt. 29-33, 59 FR 32057, June 21, 1994]