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

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of the Interior

###### National Park Service 

# SUMMARY:

Pursuant to § 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (Public Law 91-190 as amended), the National Park Service, Department of the Interior, has prepared a Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement (LEIS) assessing potential impacts of Congress establishing a proposed Timbisha Shoshone Tribal Homeland in and around Death Valley National Park, California. The Draft LEIS identifies parcels of land suitable for the Timbisha Shoshone Indian Tribe to establish a permanent homeland. In deference to public interest expressed to date from local governmental agencies, organizations, and other interested parties, the original 60-day public comment period has been extended an additional 10 calendar days from the original July 22, 2000 deadline. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Interested individuals, organizations, and agencies are encouraged to provide written comments—to be considered any response must now be postmarked no later than August 1, 2000. 

All responses should be addressed to the Superintendent, Death Valley National Park, P.O. Box 579, Death Valley, California 92328. If individuals submitting comments request that their name or/and address be withheld from public disclosure, it will be honored to the extent allowable by law. Such requests must be stated prominently in the beginning of the comments. There also may be circumstances wherein the NPS will withhold a respondent's identity as allowable by law. As always: NPS will make available to public inspection all submissions from organizations or businesses and from persons identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations and businesses; and, anonymous comments may not be considered. 

To obtain a copy of the LEIS please contact Bettie Blake at (760) 786-3243. All other questions can be directed to Joan DeGraff at (760) 255-8830. 

Dated: June 16, 2000.

John J. Reynolds,

Regional Director, Pacific West Region.

[FR Doc. 00-16094 Filed 6-23-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310-70-P
Exhibit 4.1


 





 


INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS OF DELAWARE NUMBER SHARES AIT THERAPEUTICS, INC. Fully Paid Non Assessable $0.0001 Par Value COMMON STOCK CUSIP NO. 001448 109 THIS CERTIFIES THAT IS THE RECORD HOLDER OF Shares of AIT THERAPEUTICS, INC. Capital Stock transferable on the books of the Corporation by the holder in person or by duly authorized attorney upon surrender of this Certificate properly endorsed. This Certificate is not valid until countersigned by the Transfer Agent and registered by the Registrar. WITNESS the facsimile seal of the Corporation and the facsimile signature of its duly authorized officers. Dated: COUNTERSIGNED AND REGISTERED ACTION STOCK TRANSFER CORP. 2469 E Ft. Union Blvd., #214, Salt Lake City, UT 84121 By: TRANSFER AGENT-AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE PRESIDENT SECRETARY AIT THERAPEUTICS, INC. SEAL DELAWARE














The following abbreviations, when used in the inscription on the face of this certificate, shall be construed as though they were written out in full according to applicable laws or regulations:


	 	 	 	 	 
	TEN COM   	-   	as tenants in common	UNIF GIFT MIN ACT  -	__________ Custodian __________
	TEN ENT	-	as tenants by the entireties	 	     (Cust)                                (Minor)
	JT TEN	-	as joint tenants with rights of 	 	under Uniform Gifts to Minors
	 	 	survivorship and not as tenants in	 	Act __________________________
	 	 	common	 	
(State)


	 	 		UNIF TRF MIN ACT  -	__________ Custodian (until age ____)
	 	 	 	 	     (Cust)
	 	 	 	 	________under Uniform Transfers
	 	 	 	 	
(Minor)


	 	 	 	 	to Minors Act______________
	 	 	 	 	
(State)








Additional abbreviations may also be used though not in the above list. 


 


FOR VALUE RECEIVED, ____________________________ hereby sell, assign and transfer unto 


 


PLEASE INSERT SOCIAL SECURITY OR OTHER


IDENTIFYING NUMBER OF ASSIGNEE ____________________________


 








(PLEASE PRINT OR TYPE NAME AND ADDRESS, INCLUDING ZIP CODE, OF ASSIGNEE)


 







 







 







Shares of the capital stock represented by the within Certificate, and do hereby irrevocably constitute and appoint


 








Attorney to transfer the said stock on the books of the within named Corporation with full power of substitution in the premises.


 


	Dated	 	 
	 	 
	 	 
	 	 
	 	 
	 	 
	NOTICE:	
THE SIGNATURE(S) TO THIS ASSIGNMENT MUST CORRESPOND WITH THE NAME(S) AS WRITTEN UPON THE FACE OF THE CERTIFICATE IN EVERY PARTICULAR, WITHOUT ALTERATION OR ENLARGEMENT OR ANY CHANGE WHATEVER.
No. 11-1106.

#### Yoon Ja Kim *v.*Earthgrains Co., nka Earthgrains Bakery Group, Inc.

C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER ON M OTION FOR R EHEARING

Appellate case name: In re David Patrick Daniel

Appellate case number: 01

- 1 6

- 00 953

- CV

Trial court: 308th District Court of Harris County

Date motion filed: April 21 , 201 6

Party filing motion: Relator

It is ordered that relator’s motion for rehearing is denied

.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Russell Lloyd

Acting for the Court

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Brown and Lloyd

Date: July 1 8 , 2017
§ 51-6.10 Quality of merchandise. ( a ) Commodities furnished under Government specification by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities shall be manufactured in strict compliance with such specifications. Where no specifications exist, commodities furnished shall be of a quality equal to or higher than similar items available on the commercial market. Commodities shall be inspected utilizing nationally recognized test methods and procedures for sampling and inspection.
( b ) Services furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities shall be performed in accordance with Government specifications and standards. Where no Government specifications and standards exist, the services shall be performed in accordance with commercial practices.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15

- 40474 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
JESUS MARTINEZ

- IBARRA , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 5:14

- CR

- 510

Before DAVIS, JONES, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jesus Martinez

Ibarra has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Martinez

- Ibarra h as not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents n o

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED November 16, 2015 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 15-40474 Document: 00513273063 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/16/2015No. 15

- 40474

2 nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2. Case: 15-40474 Document: 00513273063 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/16/2015
§ 102-74.410 What is the policy concerning soliciting, vending and debt collection? All persons entering in or on Federal property are prohibited from soliciting alms (including money and non-monetary items) or commercial or political donations, vending merchandise of all kinds, displaying or distributing commercial advertising, or collecting private debts, except for— ( a ) National or local drives for funds for welfare, health or other purposes as authorized by 5 CFR part 950, entitled “Solicitation Of Federal Civilian And Uniformed Service Personnel For Contributions To Private Voluntary Organizations,” and sponsored or approved by the occupant agencies;
( b ) Concessions or personal notices posted by employees on authorized bulletin boards;
( c ) Solicitation of labor organization membership or dues authorized by occupant agencies under the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (Pub. L. 95-454);
( d ) Labor organizations representing or seeking to represent contractors working in Federal Government facilities;
( e ) Lessee, or its agents and employees, with respect to space leased for commercial, cultural, educational, or recreational use under 40 U.S.C. 581(h). Public areas of GSA-controlled property may be used for other activities in accordance with subpart D of this part;
( f ) Collection of non-monetary items that are sponsored or approved by the occupant agencies; and
( g ) Commercial activities sponsored by recognized Federal employee associations and on-site child care centers.
[70 FR 67798, Nov. 8, 2005, as amended at 87 FR 54170, Sept. 2, 2022]
No. 10-11136.

#### Perales-Carrizales, aka Mata-Gonzalez *v.*United States.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

IN RE: CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF EL 

PASO (SAN LORENZO CHURCH),

 Relator.

 

 

'

'

'

'

'

'

No. 08-13-00064-CV

AN ORIGINAL PROCEEDING 

IN MANDAMUS

O R D E R

The Court has considered the Real Parties in Interest Rita Porter, Dawone Porter, 

Armando Gutierrez, Yvonne Gutierrez, Amanda Gutierrez, Armando Gutierrez, Patty Gordon 

and Dylon Gordon’s Motion to Consolidate Original Proceedings and Pending Appeal, and 

concludes the motion should be GRANTED. The above styled and numbered cause shall be 

consolidated with cause number 08-13-00061-CV, styled In Re: Heritage Operating, L.P., and 

cause number 08-13-00002-CV, styled Rita Porter, Individually & as Mother & Next Friend of 

Dawone Porter, a Minor & Patty Gordon, Individually & as Next Friend of Dylon Gordon, a 

Minor, Armando & Yvonne Gutierrez, Individually and as Parents & Next Friend of Armando & 

Amanda Gutierrez v. Heritage Operating, LP, a/k/a Denman Propane and Catholic Diocese of 

El Paso (San Lorenzo Church) for purposes of oral argument only.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 10th day of May, 2013.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure, CJ, Rivera and Rodriguez, JJ.
363A15

#### Steven Craig Herndon v. Alison Kingrey Herndon

Pit’s Motion for Additions to Record on Appeal

Allowed 11/30/2015
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 24-12813

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

BENJAMIN FRANKLIN, 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

THE CITY OF WARNER ROBINS, 

SERGEANT TIMOTHY T. PIPPIO, 

Defendants-Appellees.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Georgia

D.C. Docket No. 5:23-cv-00184-MTT

____________________

USCA11 Case: 24-12813 Document: 5-1 Date Filed: 10/04/2024 Page: 1 of 2
2 Opinion of the Court 24-12813

Before ROSENBAUM, LUCK, and BRASHER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

This appeal is DISMISSED, sua sponte, for lack of jurisdiction. Benjamin Franklin appeals from the district court’s order that 

entered summary judgment in favor of the defendants as to his federal law claims and dismissed without prejudice his state law 

claims.

We lack jurisdiction over this appeal because Franklin’s notice of appeal is untimely. See Green v. Drug Enf’t Admin., 

606 F.3d 1296, 1300 (11th Cir. 2010). The deadline for filing a notice of appeal was August 9, 2024, and Franklin did not file his notice of appeal until August 30, 2024. See 28 U.S.C. § 2107(a); Fed. 

R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A). Franklin is not entitled to relief under Fed. R. 

App. P. 4(a)(5) or 4(a)(6) because he did not file a motion to extend 

or assert that he did not receive timely notice of the final order or 

judgment. See 28 U.S.C. § 2107(c); Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5)(A), 

4(a)(6); Sanders v. United States, 113 F.3d 184, 187 (11th Cir. 1997).

No petition for rehearing may be filed unless it complies 

with the timing and other requirements of 11th Cir. R. 40-3 and all 

other applicable rules.

USCA11 Case: 24-12813 Document: 5-1 Date Filed: 10/04/2024 Page: 2 of 2
#### SUMNER KIMBALL *v.*S. S. KELTON, Admr.

*Petition Under the*Fraud, Accident, ¿fe., Statute, *R. L. s. 1428. Remedial Statute.*

1. When the return day is wrong in a copy of the writ left by an officer, and the defendant is defaulted and unjustly deprived of a hearing because of the mistake, he is entitled to have the justice judgment set aside on petition to the County Court.

2. The fraud, accident and mistake statute is remedial.

3. R. L. s. 1428, fraud, accident, mistake — construed.

Petition. Heard by the court, March Term, 1881, Washington County, Taet, J., presiding.

On the trial it appeared that the writ mentioned in the petition was made returnable before the justice of the peace who signed it *178on September 3, 1880; that it was seasonably served on the defendant in that cause by the delivery of a copy by the officer serving it, which copy the defendant gave to his attorney with instructions to attend to the case; that from that copy the defendant’s attorney understood that the writ was returnable on September 10, 1880 ; that on September 3,1880, no appearance was made before the justice on the part of the defendant in that suit, and judgment was rendered for the plaintiff by default; and the court found as a fact that the copy of the writ served upon the defendant as aforesaid was not a true copy of the original, but stated the return day to be the 10th day of September, 1880, instead of the 3d day of that month and year.

The counsel for the petitionee claimed that upon those facts the remedy of the petitioner was against the officer who served the writ, and that the statute under which the petition was brought did not apply. The court ruled otherwise and granted the prayer of the petition; to which the petitionee excepted.

*Clarence II. Pitlcin*and *Osman D. Ciarle,*for the petitionee,

cited 31 Yt. 687; 26 Yt. 748 ; 29 Yt. 332; 45 Yt. 450 ; 52 Yt. 503 j 7 Cush. 430.

N *C. Shurtleff,*for the petitioner,

cited Gen. Sts. s. 7; 17 Yt. 101; 19 Yt. 457; 33 Yt. 565.

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Yeazey, J.

This petition is brought under the fraud, accident and mistake statute, so-called, Gen. Sts. c. 38, s. 7, to set aside a judgment of a justice of the peace rendered by default. It is a remedial statute, entitled to be liberally construed, and provides a remedy additional to any existing at the common law. The officer, the agent of the plaintiff in that suit, in serving the writ made the return day wrong in the copy delivered to the then defendant, this petitioner. The default grew out of this mistake. We think it is a plain case where the defendant “ was deprived of his day in court,” by “ fraud, accident or mistake ;” and that he is entitled to this remedy notwithstanding the return of the offi*179cer on the original writ states that a true copy was delivered to the defendant, and although he might have a remedy against the officer for a false return. *Mosseaux*v. *Brigham,*19 Vt. 457; *Witherell*v. *Gloss,*26 Vt. 748.

Judgment affirmed with costs in this-court.
No. 11-8950.

#### Michuda *v.*Minnesota Board of Public Defense et al.

C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                         515,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,452,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               341,000
<PP&E>                                      33,445,000
<DEPRECIATION>                            (14,331,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              21,422,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          395,000
<BONDS>                                      7,846,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       195,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  12,986,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                21,422,000
<SALES>                                      5,324,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             5,334,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                5,287,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             327,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (280,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    30,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (310,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (310,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.08)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.08)
        

</TABLE>
# Materials Not Included in **Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket**

Docket Number: FAA- 2005 - 22523 Directorate Identifier: 2005NM058AD

767 -27 - 0204, R1 --- 2/12/09 767 -27 - 0205, R1 --- 2/12/09 767 -27A0224 --- 6/23/11

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained in the Supplemental AD Docket 

### MA **Y BE VIEWED AT:** Federa l Aviation Administration

Transport Airplane Directorate Rules Docket 1601 Lind Ave. SW., Renton, WA 98057 425.227.1221 **DURING THE HOURS OF:** 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Form Date: 03/05/2008
#### § 3030.241 Schedule of banked rate adjustment authority.

Upon the establishment of unused rate adjustment authority, the Postal Service shall devise and maintain a schedule that tracks the establishment and subsequent use of banked rate authority on a class-by-class basis. At a minimum, the schedule must track the amount of banked rate authority available immediately prior to the rate adjustment filing and the amount of banked rate authority available upon acceptance of the rates included in the rate adjustment filing. It shall also track all changes to the schedule, including the docket numbers of Commission decisions affecting the schedule, the dates and amounts that any rate authority was generated or subsequently expended, and the expiration dates of all rate adjustment authority. The schedule shall be included with any rate adjustment filing purporting to modify the amount of banked rate adjustment authority.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-7501

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

FORREST STEPHEN BLACK,

Defendant - Appellant.

No. 01-8005

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

FORREST STEPHEN BLACK,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Middle

District of North Carolina, at Winston-Salem. N. Carlton Tilley,

Jr., Chief District Judge. (CR-90-277, CA-01-41-1)

Submitted: January 23, 2002 Decided: February 5, 2002

Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
2

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Forrest Stephen Black, Appellant Pro Se. Benjamin H. White, Jr.,

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina,

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Forrest Stephen Black seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.

2001). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s

opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Black, Nos. CR-90-277; CA-01-41-

1 (M.D.N.C. July 23, 2001). We further deny leave to proceed on

appeal in forma pauperis and dispense with oral argument because

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

DISMISSED
No. 10-11228.

#### Rosario Sanchez *v.*United States.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory

2000 Traverwood Drive

Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105-2498

March 27, 2012

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Discussion with Rolls Royce Regarding the Leadtime Associated the Proposed 

Aircraft Engine Tier 6 NOx Production Cutoff—January 6, 2011

FROM: Richard S. Wilcox, Environmental Scientist

Assessment and Standards Division

Office of Transportation and Air Quality

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

TO: The Air and Radiation Docket

Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0687

We held a conference call on January 6, 2012 with representatives of Rolls Royce (RR) 

to discuss a public comment submitted by the Aerospace Industries Association (AIA) and the 

General Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA) on our Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

for new aircraft engine NOx emission standards and other requirements (July 27, 2011, 76 FR

45012). The commenters expressed a concern that there may be inadequate leadtime for the 

Federal Aviation Authority (FAA) to formally recognize Tier 6 compliance for the numerous 

existing engine models before the January 1, 2013 effective date of the production cutoff.

1

Attending the call for EPA were Glenn Passavant, John Mueller, and myself. Attending for the 

FAA was Ralph Iovinelli. Attending for RR were Paul Madden and Andrew Baker.

Rolls Royce indicated that they certify their engines solely with the European Aviation 

Safety Agency (EASA). Also, that EASA has already certificated all of their engine models, 

except one, as compliant with the Tier 6 standards. Based on this, we concluded that RR is 

unaffected by the leadtime concerns expressed by AIA and GAMA that specifically pertain to 

engine certification by the FAA.

 

1 U.S. EPA, “Summary and Analysis of Comments: Control of Air Pollution from Aircraft and Aircraft Engines,” 

Office of Transportation and Air Quality, EPA-420-R-12-011. A copy of this document is in docket number EPAHQ-OAR-2010-0687.