alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Order filed, November 14, 2013.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-13-00468-CV

____________

EDWARD GRISHAM, Appellant

V.

LORA A. THYE, Appellee

On Appeal from the 25th District Court

Colorado County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 22,073

ORDER

The reporter’s record in this case was due November 07, 2013. See Tex. R. 

App. P. 35.1. The court has not received a request to extend time for filing the 

record. The record has not been filed with the court. Because the reporter’s record 

has not been filed timely, we issue the following order.

We order Patricia M. Wagner, the substitute court reporter, to file the 

record in this appeal within 30 days of the date of this order. 

PER CURIAM
October 10, 2014

U.S. Department of Transportation Docket Operations, M
- 30 West Building Ground Floor, Room W12 - 140 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE Washington, DC 20590 To whom it might concern: Hetrick Air Services is hereby filing for an extension of exemption to 49 CFR part 40 and 14 CFR part 120 (formerly 14 CFR part 121, appendices I and J). Hetrick Air Services is requesting an extension of the ruling for exemption made in docket number FAA
2013 - 0032. The reason for this request is that there i s only one person that flies under the 91.147. Because our department is small, we do not believe having this group under a separate program warrants the additional cost and time to administer two separate programs. The program that covers our 135 operat or ensures the same level of safety and meets the same requirements of the program required for the 91.147. We do not believe that having the 91.147 under the same program as the 135 operator will compromise safety in any way. In addition, we have not ha d any positive drug or alcohol tests in our program during the last nine years; therefore, we do not believe allowing this exemption would not put our program at risk. You may reach me with questions at (785) 842
- 0000 or Lloyd@hetrickairservices.com . Regards, Lloyd Hetrick HR Manager/Drug
-Alcohol Program Manager Hetrick Air Services, Inc. 1930 Airport Road Lawrence, KS 66044 (785)842
- 0000 (785)842
- 0569 fax Lloyd@hetrickairservices.com
#### § 69.309 Other investment.

Investment that is not apportioned pursuant to §§ 69.302 through 69.307 shall be apportioned among the interexchange category, the billing and collection category and access elements in the same proportions as the combined investment that is apportioned pursuant to §§ 69.303 through 69.307.

[62 FR 31939, June 11, 1997]
#### § 43.41 [Reserved]
No. 10-11134.

#### Millen *v.*Tennessee.

Ct. Crina. App. Tenn. Certiorari denied.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Timothy Alexander RUSH, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 04-6002.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted May 24, 2004.

Decided June 4, 2004.

Timothy Alexander Rush, Appellant pro se. Morgan Eugene Scott, Acting United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia; Bruce A. Pagel, Office of the United States Attorney, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM.

Timothy Alexander Rush appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2255 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. *Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Rush has not made the requisite showing.

The district court found Rush’s trial counsel ineffective for failing to note a timely appeal and, by order filed November 10, 2003, Rush’s judgment and commitment order were re-entered. Rush timely appealed his conviction, raising five issues, including a claim that his plea agreement was unconstitutional. This Court affirmed Rush’s conviction and sentence. *See United States v. Rush,*No. 04-4000 (4th Cir. *490May 19, 2004). Rush raised a claim that his guilty plea was unconstitutional in his § 2255 motion. On appeal Rush asserts the same claim challenging the constitutionality of his guilty plea that was presented in his direct appeal. An issue previously decided on direct appeal may not be raised on collateral review. *See Boeckenhaupt v. United States,*537 F.2d 1182, 1183 (4th Cir.1976).

Rush also raises the following claims on appeal: (1) trial counsel failed to provide him with certain discovery materials; and (2) malicious prosecution. However, because he raises these claims for the first time on appeal and fails to show exceptional circumstances for his failure to raise them at an earlier stage, we are foreclosed from considering them on appeal. *See Muth v. United States,*1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir.1993).

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss Rush’s appeal. We 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*
§ 61.59 Effective period required before changes. ( a ) Except as provided in § 61.58(a)(3) or except as otherwise authorized by the Commission, new rates or regulations must be effective for at least 30 days before a dominant carrier will be permitted to make any change.
( b ) Changes to rates and regulations for dominant carriers that have not yet become effective, i.e., are pending, may not be made unless the effective date of the proposed changes is at least 30 days after the scheduled effective date of the pending revisions.
( c ) Changes to rates and regulations for dominant carriers that have taken effect but have not been in effect for at least 30 days may not be made unless the scheduled effective date of the proposed changes is at least 30 days after the effective date of the existing regulations.
[64 FR 46592, Aug. 26, 1999, as amended at 76 FR 43216, July 20, 2011]
FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________ 

Case No. 5D23-0004 

LT Case No. 16-2016-CF-10602 

_____________________________ 

RUSSELL DAVID TILLIS, 

Appellant, 

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA, 

Appellee. 

_____________________________ 

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County. 

Mark Borello, Judge. 

Jessica J. Yeary, Public Defender,, and Victor D. Holder, 

Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant. 

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Robert Charlie Lee, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee. 

January 9, 2024

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. 

EDWARDS, C.J., HARRIS, and BOATWRIGHT, JJ., concur. 
2 

_____________________________ 

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331. 

_____________________________
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","provider_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov","author_name":"Patrick Chesnut","author_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/author\/chesnutp\/","title":"Release of Prior Orders in Ongoing Judicial Investigation - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"RYRF9vgp6R\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/release-of-prior-orders-in-ongoing-judicial-investigation\/\">Release of Prior Orders in Ongoing Judicial Investigation<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/release-of-prior-orders-in-ongoing-judicial-investigation\/embed\/#?secret=RYRF9vgp6R\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Release of Prior Orders in Ongoing Judicial Investigation” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"RYRF9vgp6R\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","description":"The Court has approved the public release of all prior orders of the Special Committee and the Judicial Council, as well as Judge Newman’s Letter Responses to date, with appropriate redactions to protect the identity of witnesses.  These orders, including orders entered today, are available below. Neither the Judicial Council, Special Committee, nor the Court [...]"}
§ 65.305 Calculation of the weighted average cost of capital. ( a ) The composite weighted average cost of capital is the sum of the cost of debt, the cost of preferred stock, and the cost of equity, each weighted by its proportion in the capital structure of the telephone companies.
( b ) Unless the Commission determines to the contrary in a prescription proceeding, the composite weighted average cost of debt and cost of preferred stock is the composite weight computed in accordance with § 65.304 multiplied by the composite cost of the component computed in accordance with § 65.301 or § 65.302, as applicable. The composite weighted average cost of equity will be determined in each prescription proceeding.
[60 FR 28546, June 1, 1995]
§ 54.1603 Emergency Broadband Benefit Program support amount. ( a ) The Emergency Broadband Benefit Program support amount for all participating providers shall equal the actual discount provided to an eligible household off of the actual amount charged to such household, which shall be no more than the standard rate for an internet service offering and associated equipment, but not more than $50.00 per month, if that provider certifies that it will pass through the full amount of support to the eligible household, or not more than $75.00 per month, if that provider certifies that it will pass through the full amount of support to the eligible household on Tribal lands, as defined in 47 CFR 54.1600(t).
( b ) A participating provider that, in addition to providing the Emergency Broadband Benefit Program to an eligible household, supplies such household with a connected device may be reimbursed up to $100.00 for such connected device, if the charge to such eligible household is more than $10.00 but less than $50.00 for such connected device, except that a participating provider may receive reimbursement for no more than one (1) connected device per eligible household.
( c ) If the amount of funding remaining in the Emergency Broadband Connectivity Fund is less than the total amount of valid reimbursement claims in the Emergency Broadband Benefit Program, the support amount for all participating providers submitting valid reimbursement claims for a month may be less than the full support amount permitted under this section.
EXHIBIT
32.2














CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








In connection with the Quarterly Report of Angel Acquisition
Corp., a Nevada corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10-Q for the period ended
June 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the "Report"), I, Brent Fouch, Treasurer, Principal Accounting Officer
and Director of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 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 result of
operations of the Company.








ANGEL ACQUISITION CORP.


Dated:
August 14,
2008                                    /s/  
Brent Fouch


By: Brent Fouch, Treasurer, Principal
Accounting  Officer and Director
Be Safe Before Takeoff

Pre-Flight Safety

Flight Environment

1. Do not fly in severe weather conditions. These include wind speed exceeding 10m/s, 

snow, or rain.

2. Check location for no fly zones, airports, all other types of air traffic. If required, Contact 

air traffic control.

3. Make sure all paperwork is in order.

4. Check flight area for obstacles. Building and structures, vehicles, and power lines.

Equipment

1. Check batteries on each piece of equipment. Radio, drone, monitors, and all other 

devices.

2. Check each propeller for cracks, chips, or any abnormalities. Prepare propellers for 

flight. Check to see that they spin smoothly.

3. Check drone and all other equipment for ware, cracks, loose parts, wire connections and 

anything out of place. Check joints.

4. Fill out flight information and flight plan in log book.

5. Clear area of non-essential personal.

6. Connect all equipment. Check connections.

Camera

 Remove brace

 Insert memory card

 Remove lens cap, clean lens, add filters.

 Ensure camera is securely attached.

7. Extend all antennas to their proper position. Radio, GPS, Monitor, etc.

8. Place sUAS in a safe take off and landing area.

9. Turn on all equipment in their proper order and check connectivity.

10. Make sure all updates and firmware are current. 

11. Sync the drone compass.

12. Cycle thru controls on radio to check all is working with Drone and camera buttons.

13. Make sure your flight channels are clean and free of interference.

14. Check satellite connections.

15. Adjust settings for flight. Including “return to Home” height (set to avoid all obstacles), 

Geo Fencing perimeter, 

16. Check ground station for proper function.

17. Hover a few feet off the ground and confirm all sticks are controlling sUAS correctly.

18. Remember to start recording as needed.
#### § 73.293 Use of FM multiplex subcarriers.

Licensees of FM broadcast stations may transmit, without further authorization, subcarrier communication services in accordance with the provisions of §§ 73.319 and 73.322.

[51 FR 17028, May 8, 1986]
Argued and submitted February 4,

convictions affirmed and order of restitution vacated March 23, 1994

#### STATE OF OREGON, *Respondent, v.*TODD HARDWICK, *Appellant.*

(M92-1170; CA A79380)

871 P2d 506

Stephen P. Riedlinger argued the cause and filed the brief for appellant.

Harrison Latto, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Theodore R. Kulongoski, Attorney General, and Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General.

Before Rossman, Presiding Judge, and De Muniz and Leeson, Judges.

PER CURIAM

*135PER CURIAM

Defendant and his wife both pleaded guilty to criminal trespass. ORS 164.245. After a joint sentencing hearing, the trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed defendant and his wife on probation. It also ordered that defendant and his wife were jointly and severally liable to pay $2,000 in restitution to the victim. That sentence exceeded the maximum allowable by law, because the state failed to present any evidence that the victim suffered pecuniary damages. *State v. Hardwick (A79379),*127 Or App 132, 871 P2d 505 (1994).

Conviction affirmed; order of restitution vacated.
No. 10-10871.

#### Nelson *v.*California.

Sup. Ct. Cal. Certiorari denied.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   Exhibit 10.30


February 5, 1999

via facsimile: (650) 354-4751

Charlene A. Friedman, Esq.
COLLAGEN AESTHETICS, INC.
1850 Embarcadero Road
Palo Alto, CA  94303

Re: License Agreement between ArthroCare and Collagen

Dear Charlene:

As you know, ArthroCare is now able to offer the Exclusive ENT License Rights,
as defined in our existing License and Distribution Agreement, to Collagen.
Accordingly, pursuant to Article 4.1 of this Agreement, ArthroCare is offering
these rights to Collagen. Please indicate your acceptance of these rights by
countersigning this letter below.

If you have any questions regarding this matter, please give me a call. Thank
you.

Very truly yours,


John T. Raffle

JTR:kz

cc:   Michael A. Baker
      Christine Hanni


ACCEPTED AND AGREED:


-----------------------------------     ----------------------------------------
Charlene A. Friedman                    Date
§ 17.48 Notification of extinguishment or improper functioning of lights. The owner of any antenna structure which is registered with the Commission and has been assigned lighting specifications referenced in this part: ( a ) Shall report immediately to the FAA, by means acceptable to the FAA, any observed or otherwise known extinguishment or improper functioning of any top steady burning light or any flashing obstruction light, regardless of its position on the antenna structure, not corrected within 30 minutes. If the lights cannot be repaired within the FAA's Notices to Airmen (NOTAM) period, the owner shall notify the FAA to extend the outage date and report a return-to-service date. The owner shall repeat this process until the lights are repaired. Such reports shall set forth the condition of the light or lights, the circumstances which caused the failure, the probable date for restoration of service, the FCC Antenna Structure Registration Number, the height of the structure (AGL and AMSL if known) and the name, title, address, and telephone number of the person making the report. Further notification to the FAA by means acceptable to the FAA shall be given immediately upon resumption of normal operation of the light or lights.
( b ) An extinguishment or improper functioning of a steady burning side intermediate light or lights, shall be corrected as soon as practicable, but notification to the FAA of such extinguishment or improper functioning is not required.
[32 FR 11273, Aug. 3, 1967, as amended at 39 FR 26157, July 17, 1974; 40 FR 30267, July 18, 1975; 61 FR 4364, Feb. 6, 1996; 79 FR 56986, Sept. 24, 2014]
#### § 76.1400 Purpose.

The rules and regulations set forth in this subpart provide procedures for administering certain aspects of cable regulation. These rules and regulations provide guidance for operators, subscribers and franchise authorities with respect to matters that are subject to immediate implementation under governing statutes but require specific regulatory procedures or definitions.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","provider_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov","author_name":"25005pwpadmin","author_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/author\/25005pwpadmin\/","title":"2018-2069: In Re FCA US LLC - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"6jWB0f3Gow\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/10-01-2019-2018-2069-in-re-fca-us-llc-audio-uploaded\/\">2018-2069: In Re FCA US LLC<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/10-01-2019-2018-2069-in-re-fca-us-llc-audio-uploaded\/embed\/#?secret=6jWB0f3Gow\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“2018-2069: In Re FCA US LLC” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"6jWB0f3Gow\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","description":"Oral argument audio posted: In Re FCA US LLC (mp3) Appeal Number: 2018-2069 To listen to more oral argument recordings, follow this link: Listen To Oral Arguments."}
No. 11-10080.

#### Tucker *v.*United States.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.