alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 91.715 Special flight authorizations for foreign civil aircraft. ( a ) Foreign civil aircraft may be operated without airworthiness certificates required under § 91.203 if a special flight authorization for that operation is issued under this section. Application for a special flight authorization must be made to the appropriate Flight Standards Division Manager, or Aircraft Certification Service Division Director. However, in the case of an aircraft to be operated in the U.S. for the purpose of demonstration at an airshow, the application may be made to the appropriate Flight Standards Division Manager or Aircraft Certification Service Division Director responsible for the airshow location.
( b ) The Administrator may issue a special flight authorization for a foreign civil aircraft subject to any conditions and limitations that the Administrator considers necessary for safe operation in the U.S. airspace.
( c ) No person may operate a foreign civil aircraft under a special flight authorization unless that operation also complies with part 375 of the Special Regulations of the Department of Transportation (14 CFR part 375).
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 2120-0005) [Doc. No. 18334, 54 FR 34320, Aug. 18, 1989, as amended by Amdt. 91-212, 54 FR 39293, Sept. 25, 1989; Docket FAA-2018-0119, Amdt. 91-350, 83 FR 9171, Mar. 5, 2018]
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

October 28, 2020

No. 04-20-00294-CR

Neil Howard MCGINNIS,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 451st Judicial District Court, Kendall County, Texas

Trial Court No. 6779

Honorable Kirsten Cohoon, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

On August 26, 2020, we abated this appeal and remanded the cause to the trial court to 

determine, inter alia, whether Appellant wanted court-appointed counsel. As ordered, the trial 

court held a hearing, made findings of fact and conclusions of law, and appointed counsel to 

represent Appellant in this appeal. The trial court clerk and reporter each filed supplemental 

records.

We REINSTATE this appeal on this court’s docket. Appellant’s brief is due November 

23, 2020. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6(a). 

_________________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 28th day of October, 2020.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ,

Clerk of Court
# EUR-Lex - 32000F1213(01) - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32000F1213(01)

**Council Act of 30 November 2000 drawing up on the basis of Article 43(1) of the Convention on the establishment of a European Police Office (Europol Convention) of a Protocol amending Article 2 and the Annex to that Convention **

*
Official Journal 358 , 13/12/2000 P. 0001 - 0001 *

Council Act

of 30 November 2000

drawing up on the basis of Article 43(1) of the Convention on the establishment of a European Police Office (Europol Convention) of a Protocol amending Article 2 and the Annex to that Convention

(2000/C 358/01)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Convention on the establishment of a European Police Office(1) and in particular Article 43(1) thereof,

Having regard to the initiative of Portugal(2),

Having regard to the opinion of the European Parliament,

Having regard to the opinion of the Management Board,

Whereas:

The European Council at its meeting in Tampere invited the Council to extend the competence of Europol to money laundering in general, regardless of the type of offence from which the laundered proceeds originate,

HAS DECIDED on the drawing up of a Protocol, the text of which is annexed, amending the Convention on the establishment of a European Police Office, which has been signed today by the representatives of the Governments of the Member States of the European Union;

RECOMMENDS that it be adopted by the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.

Done at Brussels, 30 November 2000.

For the Council

The President

M. Lebranchu

(1) OJ C 316, 27.11.1995, p. 2.

(2) OJ C 200, 13.7.2000, p. 1.
(81 South. 139)

#### ELLIOTT v. DAVIS.

(6 Div. 467.)

(Court of Appeals of Alabama.

Jan. 21, 1919.)

1. Appeal and Error <&wkey;502(7) — Motion eor New Triai>-Reservation oe Exceptions— Record.

On appeal from judgment denying a motion for new trial, where it does not appear from the record that an exception was reserved to the ruling of the court on the motion for new. trial, judgment must be affirmed.

2. Appeal and Error <&wkey;502(7), 528(1) — Motion eor New Trial — Bill oe Exceptions.

• On appeal from judgment denying motion for new trial, a record of the exception reserved to the ruling of the court on the motion for new trial, together with the evidence and the ruling of the court on such motion, should be incorporated in the bill of exceptions.

*648Appeal from Circuit Court, Tuscaloosa County; Henry B. Foster, Judge.

Action between J. J. Elliott and O. M. Davis. From a judgment denying motion for new trial, the former appeals.

Affirmed.

Howard L. Smith and Allen & Fisk, of Birmingham, for appellant.

Brown & Ward, of Tuscaloosa, for appellee.

SAMFORD, J.

[1, 2] It is not necessary to a decision of this case to pass upon the numerous . Questions argued in brief. It does not appear from the record in this case that an exception was reserved to the ruling of the trial court on the motion for a new trial, which has been held to be necessary, and which, together with the evidence and the ruling of the trial court on the motion, should be incorporated in the bill of exceptions. Britton v. State, 15 Ala. App. 584, 74 South. 721; Empire Clothing Co. v. Roberts, Johnson Rand Shoe Co., ante, p. 86, 75 South. 635; King v. State, ante, p. 103, 75 South. 692; Ross v. State, ante, p. 393, 78 South. 309; Powell v. Folmar, 201 Ala. 271, 78 South. 47. For the above reason, the judgment must be affirmed.

Affirmed.
#### § 3.9 Prohibited payroll deductions.

Deductions not elsewhere provided for by this part and which are not found to be permissible under § 3.6 are prohibited.
[No. 20406-5-III.

Division Three.

November 19, 2002.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Manuel Torres Alvarado, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Yakima County, No. 01-1-00433-1, F. James Gavin, J., entered August 2, 2001. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Kato, A.C.J., concurred in by Sweeney and Schultheis, JJ.
110TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. CON. RES. 20

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Whereas under Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution of

the United States, the President is the ‘‘commander in

chief of the Army and Navy of the United States’’, and

in such capacity the President has the command of the

Armed Forces, including the authority to deploy troops

and direct military campaigns during wartime;

Whereas under Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution of the

United States, Congress has the power of the purse specifically as it relates to the Armed Forces, and in such

capacity Congress has the responsibility to fully and adequately provide funding for United States military forces,

especially when they are at war and are defending the

Nation; and

Whereas when United States military forces are in harm’s

way and are protecting our country, Congress and the

Nation should give them all the support they need in

order to maintain their safety and accomplish their assigned missions, including the equipment, logistics, and

funding necessary to ensure their safety and effectiveness, and such support is the responsibility of both the

Executive Branch and the Legislative Branch of Government: Now, therefore, be it
 †

2

SCON 20 ES

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives

2 concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that Con3 gress should not take any action that will endanger United

4 States military forces in the field, including the elimi5 nation or reduction of funds for troops in the field, as such

6 action with respect to funding would undermine their safe7 ty or harm their effectiveness in pursuing their assigned

8 missions.

Passed the Senate March 15, 2007.

Attest:

Secretary.
110TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. CON. RES. 20

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of Congress that no funds

signed missions.their safety or their ability to complete their asin the field which would result in underminingshould be cut off or reduced for American troops
110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. CON. RES. 53

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Whereas the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia 

(FARC) is designated as a foreign terrorist organization 

by the Department of State; 

Whereas the FARC utilizes kidnappings for ransom, extortion, and the drug trade to finance its activities; 

Whereas the FARC has consistently committed atrocities 

against citizens of both Colombia and the United States, 

kidnapped at least 36 United States citizens since 1980, 

and killed 10 United States citizens; 

Whereas an aircraft carrying United States citizens crashed 

over territory controlled by the FARC on February 13, 

2003; 

Whereas Keith Stansell, Thomas Howes, and Marc 

Gonsalves, 3 United States citizens on the aircraft, were 

taken hostage by the FARC on February 13, 2003; 

Whereas the FARC murdered Tom Janis, another United 

States citizen on the downed aircraft; 

Whereas 3 United States citizens on a subsequent search 

mission also lost their lives; 

Whereas the 3 hostages were last shown alive in a videotape 

seized by the Government of Colombia and aired on November 30, 2007; 
2

•SCON 53 ES 

Whereas a police officer from Colombia who escaped from the 

FARC in April 2007 claims he saw the 3 United States 

hostages alive in April 2007; 

Whereas at least 50 FARC leaders have been indicted in the 

United States for drug trafficking; and 

Whereas Ricardo Palmera, the most senior FARC leader to 

be tried in the United States, was convicted of conspiring 

to take the United States citizens hostage in Colombia: 

Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 

2 concurring), That Congress—

3 (1) condemns the kidnappings of Keith 

4 Stansell, Thomas Howes, and Marc Gonsalves by the 

5 Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) 

6 and calls for their immediate and unconditional re7 lease; 

8 (2) condemns the FARC for holding these hos9 tages for more than 4 years and demands to know 

10 their health and status; 

11 (3) condemns the FARC for the murder of Tom 

12 Janis; 

13 (4) condemns the FARC for its use of kidnap14 ping for ransom, extortion, and drug trafficking and 

15 for supporting and spreading terror within Colom16 bia; 
3

•SCON 53 ES 

1 (5) expresses sympathy to the relatives of the 

2 hostages who have been unsure of the fates of their 

3 family members for more than 4 years; 

4 (6) reconfirms that the United States Govern5 ment does not make concessions to terrorists; and 

6 (7) reiterates that the United States Govern7 ment supports efforts to secure the safe return of 

8 the hostages to the United States. 

Passed the Senate December 19 (legislative day, December 18), 2007. 

Attest:

Secretary. 
110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. CON. RES. 53

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Condemning the kidnapping and hostage-taking of 

unconditional release.(FARC), and demanding their immediate and Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia 3 United States citizens for over 4 years by the
§ 2570.9 Decision of the administrative law judge. For prohibited transaction penalty proceedings, this section shall apply in lieu of § 18.57 of this title ( a ) *Proposed findings of fact, conclusions, and order.* Within twenty (20) days of the filing of the transcript of the testimony or such additional time as the administrative law judge may allow, each party may file with the administrative law judge, subject to the judge's discretion, proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order together with a supporting brief expressing the reasons for such proposals. Such proposals and brief shall be served on all parties, and shall refer to all portions of the record and to all authorities relied upon in support of each proposal.
( b ) *Decision of the administrative law judge.* Within a reasonable time after the time allowed for the filing of the proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order, or within thirty (30) days after receipt of an agreement containing consent findings and order disposing of the disputed matter in whole, the administrative law judge shall make his or her decision. The decision of the administrative law judge shall include findings of fact and conclusions of law with reasons therefor upon each material issue of fact of law presented on the record. The decision of the administrative law judge shall be based upon the whole record. In a contested case in which the Department and the Respondent have presented their positions to the administrative law judge pursuant to the procedures for prohibited transaction penalty proceedings as set forth in this part, the penalty (if any) which may be included in the decision of the administrative law judge shall be limited to the sanction expressly provided for in section 502(i) of ERISA. It shall be supported by reliable and probative evidence. The decision of the administrative law judge shall become final agency action within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. 704 unless an appeal is made pursuant to the procedures set forth in §§ 2570.10 through 2570.12.
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. 

mntteb ~tate5 ~ourt of ~peaI5 

for tbe jf eberaI ~trtutt 

HTC CORPORATION AND HTC AMERICA, INC., 

Plaintiffs·Appellees, 

v. 

IPCOM GMBH & CO., KG, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

2012-1358 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

District of Columbia in case no. 08-CV-1897, Judge Rosemary M. Collyer. 

ON MOTION 

Before LOURIE, SCHALL, and DYK, Circuit Judges. 

LOURIE, Circuit Judge. 

ORDER 

HTC Corporation and HTC America, Inc. (collectively 

"HTC") move to dismiss IPCom GmbH & Co., KG's appeal 

for lack of jurisdiction. IPCom responds. HTC replies. 
HTCV.IPCOM 2 

IPCom concedes that the district court's judgment is 

not final, and that IPCom's motion for certification of final 

judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) 

remains pending. IPCom may re-file a notice of appeal 

within 30 days if the district court grants the Rule 54(b) 

motion or, if that motion is denied, after entry of final 

judgment. 

Accordingly, 

IT Is ORDERED THAT: 

(1) The motion is granted. The appeal is dismissed. 

(2) Each side shall bear its own costs. 

AUG 022012 

Date 

cc: Michael A. ObIon, Esq. 

FOR THE COURT 

/s/ Jan Horbaly 

Jan Horbaly 

Clerk 

Mitchell G. Stockwell, Esq. c:ouRf~lf~ FOR 

U.s.THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT 

s23 

Issued as a Mandate: AUG 022012 

AUG 022012 

JAN HOIIBALY 

ctmK
DOWER.

[Hamilton Circuit Court,

1901.]

Swing, Giffen and Jelke, JJ.

#### Halbert B. Case, Trustee v. Charles H. Hewitt et al.

Release oe Dower in Favor, oe Creditors.

Where a wife in consideration of the scaling down of the claims of certain of her husband’s creditors and an extension of time on the amounts so reduced, has joined in a trust deed, releasing her dower and said trust deed had been construed by the court under Sec. 6343 Rev. Stat., 56 O. L., 231, to inure to the equal benefit of all creditors as a general assignment, to the extent of the amounts of the claims intended to be covered by said trust deed, the wife’s release of dower is operative ; as to the other general creditors, it is not.

*824*W. C. Cochran; C. W. Baker ; Boyce & Boyd ; Pogue & Pogue ; Albert Bettinger ; Arthur Espey*and *Judson*Harmon, attorneys.

JEEKE, J.:

Having heretofore approved the findings and conclusions of the court of common pleas (Smith, J.), 10 Dec., 365 (7 N. P., 609), herein, this case now comes on for further consideration as to whether or not Mrs. Hewitt’s joining in the Case deed, undertaking thereby to convey her claimed estate of $30,000 ($20,000 and $10,000), and releasing her dower interest in all the property described in said deed, is still to be held operative, said Case deed having been construed by us to have a different effect from that in contemplation of the parties at the time of signing, and under the statute to inure to the benefit of all creditors. [See Sec. 6343, Rev. Stat.]

Having found that she took nothing in the attempt to give her a thirty thousand dollar estate, the question of release of dower only remains. .

This is not a case of setting aside a deed made to defraud creditors, as in Woodworth v. Paige, 5 Ohio St., 70, and Ridgeway v. Masting, 23 Ohio St., 294 [13 Am. Rep., 251], but the case of a deed still being treated as a conveyance, but by virtue of the statute given a certain effect.

It is only as to Charles Hewitt’s property that this deed is treated as a general assignment to inure to the benefit of Charles Hewitt’s creditors.

So far as Mrs. Hewitt’s dower interest is concerned the statute does not apply. There was ample consideration in the scaling down of their claims and in the extension of time to Hewitt moving from the creditors of Hewitt to sustain Mrs. Hewitt’s release of dower. As to the amounts of the claims of the creditors intended to be covered by the Case deed, Mrs. Hewitt’s release of dower will be held operative and given full force and effect; as to all other creditors, otherwise.
#### F. H. Jennings et al. *v.*Hammond & McRaven.

The act repealing the law authorizing the valuation of property taken under execution, containing a provision that the repeal shall not extend to any judgments previously rendered, will not embrace such judgments in its operation.

This cause came by appeal from Hinds county, and was decided at the December term, A. D. 1842, of the circuit court thereof.

The record filed in the case is as follows:

“ Be it remembered that, in the case of *Hammond 8f McRaven*v. *F. H Jennings*et. al. the plaintiffs, by their attorney, entered upon the motion docket of said court, a motion in the words and figures following, to wit: motion to set aside the valuation in this case, the same having been erroneously taken after the repeal of the law, authorizing the valuation of property levied upon under execution. And at the said term of said court, on the third day of January, it was, on motion, ordered that the valuation in this case be set aside. And at the said term, on the 25th day of January, 1843, the defendants in the case above recited, pray an appeal from the opinion of the court, in discharging the valuation, &c., and gives bond,” &c.

Briggs,' for Appellants.

Dabney, for Appellees.

Per Curiam.

The defendants in error, being plaintiffs in the execution, made a motion in the circuit court of Hinds county, to set-aside the valuation made of property taken under execution, on the ground that the statute authorizing such valuation had been repealed. The motion was made on the 3d of January, 1842. In the same month the statute was repealed, but it was subsequent to the entry of the motion. And the repealing act contains a provision that it shall not extend to any judgments previously rendered. Even then, if the act authorizing *175the valuation of property levied "on by execution, had been repealed before decision on the motion, still this case was not affected by it, because it is within the saving. It does not appear when the judgment was rendered, but it must have been before the repeal, as the valuation must have been returned to the December term of the court, which was prior to the session of the legislature, which repealed the valuation law. The record shows no other ground for the motion, and this being insufficient to justify the setting aside the valuation, even if the proper remedy is by motion, the judgment must be reversed.
### Hydrologic effects of small reservoirs in Sandstone Creek Watershed, Beckham and Roger Mills Counties, western Oklahoma

By: Frank Walter Kennon

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/wsp1839C

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plate:  **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
EXHIBIT 99.1
                     STATEMENT OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF
                    IRT PROPERTY COMPANY, AS GENERAL PARTNER
                              OF IRT PARTNERS, L.P.
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                   SEC. 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     In  connection  with  the  Quarterly Report of IRT Partners, L.P. ("LP") on
Form  10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2002, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Thomas H. McAuley,
Chief  Executive  Officer  of  the  Company, as general partner of IRT Partners,
L.P., do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Sec.  906  of  The  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act  of  2002,  that:

1)     The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of  the  Securities  Exchange  Act  of  1934;  and

2)     The  information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects,  the  financial  condition  and  results of operations of the Company.


/s/  Thomas  H.  McAuley
------------------------
IRT  Property  Company,  as  general  Partner
Thomas  H.  McAuley
Chief  Executive  Officer
November  12,  2002