alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### Page 1 of 3 **Disposition Comments Docket No:**  **FAA -**  **2015 -**  **3942** ☐ These comments are in **Directorate ID: 2014**  **- SW**  **- 064**  **- AD**  response to an SNPRM Originating Office Tracking No.: **Next Step:** ☒ FRAN ☐ SNPRM 

### ☒ N o C omments/Only

Supportive Comments Received

– If this box is checked, no signatures are required. No 

### Has the reference d service information been revised since the NPRM was issued?

If yes, list latest revision and attach a cop y. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance. 

### Latest Revision
. Instructions: Summarize all comments **by issue** (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of each issue. **All comments relating to the sam**  **e issue should be discussed together.** Do not list all of the issues from one commenter together. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and describe in detail what change(s) you recommend
. Reference FAA
- IR
- M
- 8040.1C Chapter 9. **ISSUE 1:** Select one o

f the following : 

### Choose one . If other, explain : Commenter(s): 

### Click here to enter text. What change to the AD action is requested? 

### Click here to enter text. Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

### Click here to enter text. Do we agree? 

### Yes/No If **YES,** we agree because 

### Insert justification Make the following changes to the AD: 

### Li st an y changes to the AD If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree with 

### In sert text because 

### In sert justification We disagree with 

### Insert text because 

### In sert justification Make the following changes to the AD: 

### List an y changes to the AD If **NO** , we don’t agree because 

### In sert our rationale
**ISSUE 2**  **:** Select one of the following : 

### Choose one .

If other, explain : 

### Click here to enter text. Commenter(s): 

### Click here to enter text. What change to the AD action is requested? 

### Click here to enter text. Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

### Click here to enter text. Do we agree? 

### Yes/No

### Page 2 of 3

If **YES,** we agree because 

### Insert justification Make the following changes to the AD: 

### Li st an y changes to the AD If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree with 

### In sert text because 

### In sert justification We disagree with 

### Insert text because 

### In sert justification Make the following changes to the AD: 

### List an y changes to the AD If **NO** , we don’t agree because 

### In sert our rationale
**For additional issues, double -**  **click here** 

### Page 3 of 3 **S ignature Section**  Signature indicates concurrence with this action. Originating Office Tracking No.:

**ASE** Printed Name **: Date** 

**Branch Manager Date**
# Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed November 10, 2022. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________ No. 3D22-211 Lower Tribunal No. 16-11546CC

________________ Sabine Dessources, Appellant,
vs. Progressive American Ins. Co., a/s/o Alicia Barnes,

Appellee. An Appeal from the County Court for Miami-Dade County, Natalie Moore, Judge. Catherine A. Riggins, for appellant. Markcity, Rothman, Cantwell & Breitner, P.A., and Mary M. Cantwell (Plantation), for appellee. Before FERNANDEZ, C.J., and SCALES and LOBREE, JJ. PER CURIAM. Affirmed.
Exhibit 4.2

 



36KR HOLDINGS   INC. Number Class A Ordinary Shares Incorporated under the laws of the Cayman   Islands Share capital is US$500,000 divided into (i) 4,903,917,300 Class A   Ordinary Shares of a par value of US$0.0001 each and (ii) 96,082,700 Class B   Ordinary Shares of a par value of US$0.0001 each. . THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT   is the registered holder of Class A Ordinary Shares in the above-named   Company subject to the Memorandum and Articles of Association thereof.   EXECUTED on behalf of the said Company on the day of 2019 by: DIRECTOR 


    




 










36KR HOLDINGS   INC. Number Class B Ordinary Shares Incorporated under the laws of the Cayman   Islands Share capital is US$500,000 divided into (i) 4,903,917,300 Class A   Ordinary Shares of a par value of US$0.0001 each and (ii) 96,082,700 Class B   Ordinary Shares of a par value of US$0.0001 each. . THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT   is the registered holder of Class B Ordinary Shares in the above-named   Company subject to the Memorandum and Articles of Association thereof. EXECUTED   on behalf of the said Company on the day of 2019 by: DIRECTOR
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.

§ 165.837 Safety Zone; Invista Inc Facility Docks, Victoria Barge Canal, Victoria, Texas. ( a ) *Location.* The following area is a safety zone: All waters contained within a 500-foot (152.5m) extension east and west of the Invista Inc facility docks while performing offloading operations.
( b ) *Enforcement period.* This rule will be enforced for periods of 24-30 hours twice a month, from the time the oversized barge docks at the Invista Inc facility until the vessel departs the facility upon conclusion of its offloading operations. The Captain of the Port Corpus Christi will issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners before beginning enforcement and upon ceasing enforcement of the safety zone.
( c ) *Definitions.* The following definition applies to this section: *designated representative* means any commissioned, warrant, and petty officers of the Coast Guard on board Coast Guard, Coast Guard Auxiliary, and local, state, and Federal law enforcement vessels who have been authorized to act on the behalf of the Captain of the Port Corpus Christi.
( d ) *Regulations.* ( 1 ) Persons desiring to transit the area of the safety zone may contact the Captain of the Port at telephone number 1-361-939-6393, or the barge on VHF Channel 16 (156.800MHz) to seek permission to transit the area. If permission is granted, all persons and vessels must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port or his or her designated representative.
( 2 ) All persons and vessels must comply with the instructions of the Coast Guard Captain of the Port or the designated representative.
( 3 ) Upon being hailed by U.S. Coast Guard patrol personnel by siren, radio, flashing light, or other means the operator of a vessel must proceed as directed.
( 4 ) The Coast Guard may be assisted by other Federal, State, or local agencies.
( 5 ) In accordance with the general regulations in 33 CFR part 165.23, no person or vessel may enter or remain in the zone described in paragraph (a) of this section except for support vessels/aircraft and support personnel, or other vessels authorized by the Captain of the Port Corpus Christi or his designated representative.
( e ) *Penalties.* Vessels or persons violating this rule are subject to the penalties set forth in 46 U.S.C. 70036 and 46 U.S.C. 70052.
[USCG-2009-0797, 75 FR 13436, Mar. 22, 2010]
### EAARL coastal topography - Northern Gulf of Mexico

By: Amar NayegandhiJohn Brock**Abby SallengerC. Wayne WrightLaurinda J. TraversJames Lebonitte

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/ds384

#### Links

- More information:  **USGS Index Page**                            (html)
- NGMDB Index Page:  **National Geologic Map Database Index Page**                            (html)
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

#### Study Area
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion

should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited

circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-40516

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

HUMBERTO RODRIGUEZ-LOZANO

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:04-CR-461-1

Before JONES, Chief Judge, and CLEMENT and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Humberto Rodriguez-Lozano (Rodriguez) appeals his sentence for the

revocation of his supervised release following his second conviction for illegal

entry into the United States. For the first time on appeal, Rodriguez argues that

his sentence exceeds the statutory maximum. The Government concedes that

the sentence exceeds the statutory maximum.

While Rodriguez did not raise this argument below, we nevertheless

review this issue de novo because Rodriguez asserts that his sentence exceeds

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

April 25, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-40516

2

the statutory maximum. See United States v. Del Barrio, 427 F.3d 280, 282 &

n.4 (5th Cir. 2005). Rodriguez’s conviction that resulted in the term of

supervised release that was revoked was for a second violation of 8 U.S.C.

§ 1325(a)(1), which allows for a maximum sentence oftwo years of imprisonment

and is a Class E felony. See § 1325(a); 18 U.S.C. § 3581(b)(5). Upon the

revocation of supervised release that was imposed for a conviction for a Class E

felony,the maximum sentence that may be imposed is one year of imprisonment.

18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). Rodriguez’s sentence of 18 months of imprisonment

exceeds the statutory maximum. See id. Accordingly, we vacate Rodriguez’s

sentence and remand this case to the district court for resentencing.

VACATED AND REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING.
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

1310 

KA 10-00803 

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., CENTRA, FAHEY, CARNI, AND SCONIERS, JJ. 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

RASHEED MILTON, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

 

THE LEGAL AID BUREAU OF BUFFALO, INC., BUFFALO (VINCENT F. GUGINO OF

COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

FRANK A. SEDITA, III, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BUFFALO (MICHAEL J. HILLERY

OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Erie County (John L.

Michalski, A.J.), rendered March 24, 2010. The judgment convicted

defendant, upon a jury verdict, of predatory sexual assault (two

counts), criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, and

unlawful imprisonment in the second degree. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed. 

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him

upon a jury verdict of, inter alia, two counts of predatory sexual

assault (Penal Law § 130.95 [1] [b]; [3]). Defendant contends that

the People committed a Brady violation inasmuch as they failed to

inform him that one of the investigating police officers who testified

at trial had a second job as a private investigator for an agency that

is periodically retained by the law firm representing the victim in a

personal injury action arising out of the incident underlying the

conviction. We reject that contention. Even assuming, arguendo, that

such information constituted Brady material on the ground that it

could be used to impeach the officer’s testimony, we conclude that

there was no “reasonable possibility that the outcome of the trial

would have differed had [that information] been [disclosed]” (People v

Scott, 88 NY2d 888, 891; see People v Vilardi, 76 NY2d 67, 77). 

Defendant’s further contention that he was deprived of a fair

trial based on prosecutorial misconduct is not preserved for our

review (see CPL 470.05 [2]) and, in any event, that contention is

without merit. “Reversal on the ground[] of prosecutorial misconduct

‘is mandated only when the conduct has caused such substantial

prejudice to the defendant that he [or she] has been denied due

process of law’ ” (People v Rubin, 101 AD2d 71, 77, lv denied 63 NY2d

711), and that is not the case here. We reject defendant’s contention
-2- 1310 

KA 10-00803 

that he was denied effective assistance of counsel. Viewing the

evidence, the law and the circumstances of this case in totality and

as of the time of the representation, we conclude that defendant

received meaningful representation (see generally People v Baldi, 54

NY2d 137, 147). We have considered defendant’s remaining contentions

and conclude that they are without merit.

Entered: December 30, 2011 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
§ 20.1001 General. ( a ) Any party may appeal the ALJ' s decision by filing a notice of appeal. The party shall file the notice with the U. S. Coast Guard Administrative Law Judge Docketing Center; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk; Room 412; 40 S. Gay Street; Baltimore, MD 21201-4022. The party shall file the notice 30 days or less after issuance of the decision, and shall serve a copy of it on the other party and each interested person.
( b ) No party may appeal except on the following issues: ( 1 ) Whether each finding of fact is supported by substantial evidence.
( 2 ) Whether each conclusion of law accords with applicable law, precedent, and public policy.
( 3 ) Whether the ALJ abused his or her discretion.
( 4 ) The ALJ's denial of a motion for disqualification.
( c ) No interested person may appeal a summary decision except on the issue that no hearing was held or that in the issuance of the decision the ALJ did not consider evidence that that person would have presented.
( d ) The appeal must follow the procedural requirements of this subpart.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman,

 Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Kurtis T. Wilder

Elizabeth T. Clement,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, 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. 

 

 

May 23, 2018 

t0516 

Order 

 

Clerk 

May 23, 2018 

156823 

FRED PAQUIN, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v SC: 156823 

 COA: 334350 

Mackinac CC: 2015-007789-CZ 

CITY OF ST. IGNACE, 

Defendant-Appellee, 

and 

ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

 Intervening Appellee. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 19, 2017 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered. We direct the Clerk to schedule oral 

argument on whether to grant the application or take other action. MCR 7.305(H)(1). 

 The appellant shall file a supplemental brief within 42 days of the date of this 

order addressing whether the plaintiff’s holding elective office with and being employed 

by an Indian tribe constitutes “any elective office or position of employment in local, 

state, or federal government” under Const 1963, art 11, § 8. In addition to the brief, the 

appellant shall electronically file an appendix conforming to MCR 7.312(D)(2). In the 

brief, citations to the record must provide the appendix page numbers as required by 

MCR 7.312(B)(1). The appellees shall file supplemental briefs within 21 days of being 

served with the appellant’s brief. The appellees shall also electronically file appendices, 

or in the alternative, stipulate to the use of the appendix filed by the appellant. Replies, if 

any, must be filed by the appellant within 14 days of being served with the respective 

appellee’s brief. The parties should not submit mere restatements of their application 

papers.
**Exhibit 32(f)**

 

 

 

**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 Southern Power Company for the quarter ended September 30, 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 Southern Power Company for the quarter ended September 30, 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 Southern Power Company for the quarter ended September 30, 2007, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Southern Power Company. |

 

 

 

|   | /s/Ronnie L. Bates

Ronnie L. Bates

President and Chief Executive Officer

 

 

 

  |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | /s/Michael W. Southern

Michael W. Southern

Senior Vice President and

Chief Financial Officer

     |

 

 

Date:  November 6, 2007
#### JOEL W. MASON, Respondent, *v.*CHARLES PARTRIDGE, Impleaded, etc., Appellant. EDWIN SAWYER and others, Respondents, *v.*THE SAME, Appellant. LEVY KILBURN and others, Respondents, *v.*THE SAME, Appellant.

*Partnership*— *Imitation upon power of managing partner*— *waiver of.*

An agreement, in writing, was entered into between the defendants Partridge and Whitney, by which the former placed $2,000 in the hands of the latter to be used in the business of buying and selling chairs and the materials therefor; Whitney having no authority to sign any note or obligation of indebtedness for Partridge, but to conduct the business for cash only; Partridge in no event to be liable for more than the $2,000 advanced. Whitney was to have one-half of the profits and was to render quarterly statements showing the condition of the business. Whitney subsequently purchased of the plaintiffs in the above actions, who had notice of the conditions of the agreement, large amounts of goods upon credit. By the statements which were regularly furnished as required by the agreement, it appeared that debts had been created, in the course of the business, largely in excess of the $2,000. *Held,*that Partridge by failing to object to the business being carried on upon credit, held Whitney out as authorized to transact the business in that way, and was liable for the debts so contracted.

Appeals from judgments in favor of the plaintiffs in the above entitled actions, entered upon the reports of a referee.

*William F. Leonard,*for the appellant.

*Joseph H.*Choate, for the respondents.

Opinion by

Daniels, J.

Davis, P. J., and Brady, J., concurred.

*622Judgment in the first action modified by reducing the recovery from $696.10 to $180.50 and interest, as specified in opinion, if plaintiff so stipulate, and as modified affirmed, without costs.

Judgment in other actions affirmed.
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Jesus Pacheco v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01-18-00605-CR

Trial court case number: F17-1611-431

Trial court: 431st District Court of Denton County

This appeal was abated and the case remanded to the trial court based on 

appointed counsel’s failure to timely file a brief on appellant’s behalf. See TEX. R. APP.

P. 38.8(b). Appellant’s appointed counsel has now submitted a brief on appellant’s 

behalf. Accordingly, we withdraw our December 18, 2018 abatement order and 

reinstate the case on the Court’s active docket.

Appellant’s brief is filed as of January 2, 2019. The State’s brief is due no later 

than 30 days from the date of this order. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6(b), (d).

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Julie Countiss

  Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: __January 10, 2019____
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 22-cv-22736-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes

VICTOR ARIZA,

Plaintiff,

v.

J. CREW GROUP LLC,

Defendant.

________________________________/

ORDER ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSING CASE

THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon the Notice of Settlement, ECF No. [7], filed on

September 15, 2022, indicating that the parties have reached a settlement of the claims in this case.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

1. The above-styled action is administratively CLOSED without prejudice to the parties 

to file appropriate dismissal documentation.

2. The Clerk of Court shall CLOSE this case for administrative purposes only.

3. To the extent not otherwise disposed of, any scheduled hearings are CANCELED, 

all pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT, and all deadlines are 

TERMINATED.

Case 1:22-cv-22736-BB Document 8 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/15/2022 Page 1 of 2
Case No. 22-cv-22736-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes

2

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, on September 15, 2022.

_________________________________

BETH BLOOM

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies to: 

Counsel of Record

Case 1:22-cv-22736-BB Document 8 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/15/2022 Page 2 of 2
CAROL J . HOLAHAN 

DIRECTOR 

STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE 

OFFICE OF LEGISLATIVE SERVICES 

STATE HOUSE 

107 NORTH MAIN STREET, ROOM 109 , 

CONCORD, NEW HAMPSHIRE 03301-4951 

November 24, 2004 

Received from the Commissioner, Department of Environmental Services 

the following certified rule(s) filed with the Director of Legislative Services, in accordance with RSA 541-A, the 

Administrative Procedures Act. 

Document # #8217 

Relative to: Env-A 2700 - Hot Mix Asphalt Plants 

Number of Pages: 3 

Adopted Date: 11-22-04 

Filing Date: 11-23-04 

Effective Date: 11-24-04 

Expiration Date: 11-24-12 

Notes: 

In all communications with this office concerning the above rule(s), please cite the appropriate document 

number, as indicated above. 

Carol J. Holahao j Director 

Office of Legislative Services 

CJH/lms 

ADMINISTRATION (603) 271-3436 

DIRECTOR (603) 271-3432 . TDD Access: Relay NH 1-800-735-2964 LEGAL STAFF (603) 271-3435 

ADMINISTRATIVE RULES (603) 271-3680 FAX: (603) 271-6607 RESEARCH (603) 271-3326
#### § 183.1 Purpose and applicability.

This part prescribes standards and regulations for boats and associated equipment to which 46 U.S.C. Chapter 43 applies and to which certification requirements in Part 181 of this subchapter apply.

[CGD 85-098, 52 FR 19728, May 27, 1987]
#### § 25.707 Time limitation on claims.

A claim may be settled only if presented within 90 days after it accrues unless good cause is shown for the delay.