alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Editorial Note on Part 165
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 165 appear by USCG-2006-25556, 72 FR 36328, 36329, July 2, 2007 and by USCG-2018-1049, 84 FR 7813, Mar. 5, 2019.

§ 165.845 Safety Zone; Lower Mississippi River, mile markers 94 to 97 above Head of Passes, New Orleans, LA. ( a ) *Location.* The following area is a safety zone: All navigable waters of the Lower Mississippi River, New Orleans, LA from mile marker (MM) 94 (29°57′32′′ N, 90°03′05′′ W) to MM 97 (29°55′19′′ N, 90°04′00′′ W), NAD83 datum, on the Lower Mississippi River, above Head of Passes.
( b ) *Enforcement period.* The safety zone established by this section will be enforced only upon notice of the Captain of the Port Sector New Orleans (COTP). In accordance with 33 CFR 165.7, for each enforcement of a safety zone established under this section, the COTP will publish a notice of enforcement in the Federal Register as early as practicable. In addition, the COTP will also inform the public of the enforcement area and times of this section as indicated in paragraph (d) of this section.
( c ) *Regulations.* ( 1 ) In accordance with the general regulations in § 165.23 of this part, entry into this zone is prohibited to all vessels and persons except vessels authorized by the COTP or designated representative. A designated representative means any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty officer of the U.S. Coast Guard assigned to units under the operational control of Sector New Orleans.
( 2 ) Persons and vessels requiring entry into this safety zone must request permission from the COTP or a designated representative. They may be contacted on VHF-FM Channel 16 or 67 or by telephone at (504) 365-2200.
( 3 ) Persons and vessels permitted to enter this safety zone must transit at their slowest safe speed and comply with all lawful directions issued by the COTP or the designated representative.
( d ) *Information broadcasts.* The COTP or a designated representative will inform the public of the enforcement period of this safety zone through Vessel Traffic Service Advisories, Broadcast Notices to Mariners (BNMs), Local Notice to Mariners (LNMs), and/or Marine Safety Information Bulletins (MSIBs) as appropriate.
[USCG-2018-0372, 83 FR 39883, Aug. 13, 2018]
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER ON M OTION FOR E N BANC R ECONSIDERATION

Appellate case name: Albert Morris v. Wells Fargo Bank

Appellate case number: 01

- 19

- 00610

- CV

Trial court case number: 15

- DCV

- 221475

Trial court: 434th District Court of Fort Bend County

T his appeal was dismissed o n September 26, 2019 for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal filed by appellant, Albert Morris, was untimely. On October 11, 2019, Morris filed a motion for an extension of time to file a motion for rehearing. The Court granted the motion and extended the deadline to November 25, 2019. Morris filed his motion for rehearing on November 25, 2019 and the Court subsequently denied the motion on January 9, 2020.

On January 24, 2020, Morris filed a motion requesting a 45

- day extension of time to file a motion for en banc reconsideration. The Court granted the motion and extended the deadline to March 13, 2020. On March 6, 2020, Morris filed another extension motion requesting an additional 45

- day extension. The Court granted the motion and extended the deadline to Ma y 12, 2020. On May 8, 2020, Morris filed yet another extension motion, this time requesting an additional 120

- day extension. The Court denied the additional extension on June 10, 2020. Morris subsequently filed a motion for rehearing regarding the denial of his motion for an additional extension of time to file a motion for en banc reconsideration . The C ourt denied the motion for rehearing on October 13, 2020.

On October 28, 2020, Morris filed a motion for en banc reconsideration regarding the denial of h is motion for an additional extension of time to file a motion for en banc reconsideration

. The E n B anc Co urt has voted to deny the motion for en banc reconsideration filed by Morris. Accordingly, it is ordered that the motion for en banc reconsideration i s denied

.

En B anc C ourt consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Keyes, Lloyd, Kelly, Goodman, Landau, Hightower, Countiss, and Adams.

Judge’s signature:

______ /s/ Sarah B. Landau

___________ Acting for the En Banc Court

Date: ___ December 3, 2020

_____
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF ALABAMA GAS CORPORATION FOR THE
QUARTER ENDED MARCH 31, 1997, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000003146
<NAME> ALABAMA GAS CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                                        <C> 
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-1-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                      280,688
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                        347
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                         117,638
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                        11,250
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 409,923
<COMMON>                                            20
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                       34,484
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                            110,294
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                 144,798
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                           125,000
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                              24,000
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                        0
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                     0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                 116,125
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                  409,923
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                      243,457
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                            12,454
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     203,984
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     216,438
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                         27,019
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                                 589
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                  27,608
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         5,638
<NET-INCOME>                                    21,970
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                          0
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                   21,970
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                         6,720
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                        2,211
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                        (11,730)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Alabama Gas Corporation (Alagasco) is a subsidiary of Energen
Corporation.  Earnings per share is not calculated for Alagasco as amount 
would not be meaningful.  
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Cornelio Macedo Medrano , Appellant

No. 06

- 23

- 00188

- CR v.

The State of Texas , Appellee Appeal from the 76th District Court of Titus County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. CR20965 ). Panel con sists of Chief Justice Stevens and Justices van Cleef and Rambin. Memorandum Opinion delivered by Justice Rambin

.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court below. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. We note that the appellant, Cornelio Macedo Medrano , has adequately indicated his inability to pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED APRIL 5, 2024 BY ORDER OF THE COURT SCOTT E. STEVENS CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST: Debra K. Autrey , Clerk
Order entered April 29, 2019

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-18-01454-CV

RYAN CHANDLER, Appellant

V.

WOODFOREST BANK, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 3

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CC-18-02368-C

ORDER

The reporter’s record is overdue. By letter dated March 26, 2019, Janet Wright, Official 

Court Reporter for County Court at Law No. 3, informed the Court that appellant had not 

requested preparation of the reporter’s record. By letter dated April 3, 2019, the Court instructed 

appellant to file, within ten days, written verification that he had requested preparation of the 

reporter’s record and written verification that he had paid or made arrangements to pay the 

reporter’s fee or written documentation that he had been found to be entitled to proceed without 

payment of costs. We cautioned appellant that failure to comply might result in the Court 

ordering the appeal be submitted without the reporter’s record. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(c). As 

of today’s date, appellant has not responded. Accordingly, we ORDER the appeal be submitted 

without the reporter’s record. See id.

Appellant shall file his brief on the merits on or before May 29, 2019.

/s/ BILL WHITEHILL

JUSTICE
Editorial Note on Part 165
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 165 appear by USCG-2006-25556, 72 FR 36328, 36329, July 2, 2007 and by USCG-2018-1049, 84 FR 7813, Mar. 5, 2019.

§ 165.2030 Pacific Area. ( a ) This section applies to any vessel or person in the navigable waters of the United States within the boundaries of the U.S. Coast Guard Pacific Area, which includes the Eleventh, Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Seventeenth U.S. Coast Guard Districts. Note to paragraph ( a
):
The boundaries of the U.S. Coast Guard Pacific Area and the Eleventh, Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Seventeenth U.S. Coast Guard Districts are set out in 33 CFR part 3.
( b ) A naval vessel protection zone exists around U.S. naval vessels greater than 100 feet in length overall at all times in the navigable waters of the United States, whether the large U.S. naval vessel is underway, anchored, moored, or within a floating dry dock, except when the large naval vessel is moored or anchored within a restricted area or within a naval defensive sea area.
( c ) The Navigation Rules shall apply at all times within a naval vessel protection zone.
( d ) When within a naval vessel protection zone, all vessels shall operate at the minimum speed necessary to maintain a safe course, unless required to maintain speed by the Navigation Rules, and shall proceed as directed by the Coast Guard, the senior naval officer present in command, or the official patrol. When within a naval vessel protection zone, no vessel or person is allowed within 100 yards of a large U.S. naval vessel unless authorized by the Coast Guard, the senior naval officer present in command, or official patrol.
( e ) To request authorization to operate within 100 yards of a large U.S. naval vessel, contact the Coast Guard, the senior naval officer present in command, or the official patrol on VHF-FM channel 16.
( f ) When conditions permit, the Coast Guard, senior naval officer present in command, or the official patrol should: ( 1 ) Give advance notice on VHF-FM channel 16 of all large U.S. naval vessel movements;
( 2 ) Permit vessels constrained by their navigational draft or restricted in their ability to maneuver to pass within 100 yards of a large U.S. naval vessel in order to ensure a safe passage in accordance with the Navigation Rules; and
( 3 ) Permit commercial vessels anchored in a designated anchorage area to remain at anchor when within 100 yards of passing large U.S. naval vessels; and
( 4 ) Permit vessels that must transit via a navigable channel or waterway to pass within 100 yards of a moored or anchored large U.S. naval vessel with minimal delay consistent with security.
Note to paragraph ( f
):
The listed actions are discretionary and do not create any additional right to appeal or otherwise dispute a decision of the Coast Guard, the senior naval officer present in command, or the official patrol.
[PAC AREA-02-001, 67 FR 38394, June 4, 2002]
§ 162.245 Kenai River, Kenai, Alaska; use, administration, and navigation. ( a ) *The area.* The main channel area of the river, having a width of 150 feet, beginning at a point directly offshore from the centerline of the city dock and extending about 2,200 feet upstream to a point 200 feet upstream from the Inlet Co. dock.
( b ) *The regulations.* ( 1 ) Vessels may navigate, anchor, or moor within the area until such time as notification is received or observation is made of intended passage to or from the docking areas.
( 2 ) Notice of anticipated passage of towboats and barges shall be indicated 24 hours in advance by display of a red flag by the Inlet Co. from its warehouse.
Exhibit 31.2
CERTIFICATION UNDERSECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEYACT OF 2002 

I, Masoud Najand,  theChief Financial Officer of TMSF Holdings, Inc., certify that: 

1.           I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended          December 31, 2003 of TMSF Holdings, Inc.; 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect tothe period covered by this quarterly report; 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, resultsof operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented inthis report; 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a 15(e)and 15d-15(e) for the registrant and we have: 

     a. designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to usby others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report isbeing prepared; 

     b. designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal controlover financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assuranceregarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statementsfor external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles.
     c. disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarterthat has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions): 

     a. all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation ; and 

     b. any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal controls over financial reporting. 

/s/ Masoud Najand     Masoud Najand Chief Financial OfficerMarch 30, 2004
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

April 28, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 130222 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 130222 

 COA: 266043 

Oakland CC: 97-150559-FC 

CLEARTHUR HARDY,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 9, 2005 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant’s 

motion for relief from judgment is prohibited by MCR 6.502(G). 

d0424 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

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

April 28, 2006 

Clerk
§ 181.7 Compliance certification label required. Unless there is affixed to it a certification label that contains the information required by § 181.15: ( a ) No person who manufactures, constructs, or assembles a boat or associated equipment may deliver that boat or equipment for the purpose of sale;
( b ) No person may import into the United States any boat or associated equipment; and
( c ) No person engaged in the business of selling or distributing boats or associated equipment may sell or offer for sale any boat or associated equipment.
Exhibit 10.1


 


Description of Verbal Management Consulting
Agreement Between Buncombe, Inc. and Peter Coker


 


On April
27, 2012, Peter Coker, the President and sole director of Buncombe, Inc. (the “Company”), verbally agreed to
provide funding to cover the costs of investigating and analyzing business combinations for the next 12 months and beyond, until
the Company is engaged in business activities that provide cash flow sufficient to cover the costs of investigating and analyzing
business combinations. We currently have no written contractual agreements in place with Mr. Coker to provide such funding. During
the next 12 months, Mr. Coker has agreed to cover costs including, but not limited to, the filing of Exchange Act reports, and
consummating an acquisition. At this time we do not have the funds to pay for these filings and do not have any written agreement
to raise funds to cover these expenses. However, we believe we will be able to meet these costs with funds provided by Mr. Coker.
At such time that the Company has the ability to cover the costs of investigating and analyzing business combinations with cash
flow from operations, Mr. Coker will no longer be obligated to cover such costs.
#### Owen *v.*Riley’s Ex’or.*

*(Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia,*

*Oct. 3, 1878.)*

Suit Affecting Estate of a Decedent — Parties.

Where the estate of a decedent may be affected by a decree it is error to make such decree without making the personal representative of such decedent a party to the suit in which the decree is rendered.

Appeal from circuit court of Erederick county.

*

The record in this case was lost.

Christian, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

The court is of opinion that no decree ascertaining and fixing the rights of W. D. Bartlett and Joseph P. Riley’s executor as to the bonds executed by Bartlett and payable to Joseph A. Yasse ought to have been rendered in this cause without first requiring that the personal representative of the said Joseph A. Yasse be made a party to this suit and be summoned to appear before the commissioner. The estate of Yasse may be directly interested in the question of the transfer of said bonds as whether in fact Bartlett had paid off the bonds in question, and his personal representative was a necessary and proper party and ought to have been before the court.

For this reason and without passing upon any other question in the cause, it is adjudged, ordered and decreed, that *137the decrees of the circuit court rendered on the 11th day of November, 1871, and on the 26th day of March, 1877, be and the same are reversed and annulled, and that the appellants recover of the appellees their costs by them expended in the prosecution of their appeal and writ of supersedeas here. And the cause is remanded to the said circuit court with instructions to said court that no further proceedings be had in said suit until the personal representative of the said Joseph A. Yasse shall by proper process be made a party to this suit or be notified to appear before the commissioner of said circuit court charged with taking the account directed in the cause, to assert his claim, if any he has, to the amount payable in the said bonds, executed by said Bartlett. And liberty is reserved to the parties interested to take any further and additional proof touching the assignment or transfer of said bonds or payment of the same by the obligor to said Yasse in his lifetime. All of which is ordered to be certified to the circuit court of Frederick county.
**Exhibit 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent to the incorporationby reference in Registration Statement Nos. 333-54378, 333-128232, 333-149418 and 333-166543 on Forms S-8 of our report dated February 22, 2011 relating to the consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule of RTI Biologics,Inc. and subsidiaries (the “Company”) and the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of RTI Biologics, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2010.

/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP 

Certified Public Accountants 

Tampa*,*Florida 

February 22, 2011
**Exhibit 32(b)**

 

 

 

**CERTIFICATION**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE**

**SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Alabama Power Company for the quarter ended March 31, 2007, we, the undersigned, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of our individual knowledge and belief, that:

 

| (1)    | such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Alabama Power Company for the quarter ended March 31, 2007, which this statement accompanies, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Alabama Power Company for the quarter ended March 31, 2007, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Alabama Power Company. |

 

 

|   | /s/Charles D. McCrary

Charles D. McCrary

President and Chief Executive Officer

 

 

  |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | /s/Art P. Beattie

Art P. Beattie

Executive Vice President,

Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer      |

 

 

Date:  May 7, 2007
###### Editorial Note on Part 157

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 157 appear by USCG-2008-0179, 73 FR 35015, June 19, 2008.

#### § 157.510 Operational measures.

An owner or operator of a tank vessel that carries animal fat or vegetable oil in bulk as cargo or cargo residue shall comply with the requirements in all sections of subpart G of this part.