alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-12-00406-CR

William Adrian Roberts

v.

The State of Texas

§

§

§

§

§

From Criminal District Court No. 4

of Tarrant County (1215148D)

September 18, 2014

Opinion by Justice McCoy

(p)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that 

there was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of 

the trial court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By /s/ Bob McCoy___________________

 Justice Bob McCoy
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 Transportation

###### Federal Aviation Administration

          - 14 CFR Part 71
          - [Docket No. FAA-2006-25252; Airspace Docket No. 06-AWP-12]
          - RIN 2120-AA66

# AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

# ACTION:

Direct final rule, confirmation of effective date. 

# SUMMARY:

This document confirms the effective date of the direct final rule which revokes a Class E2 Surface Area, Elko, NV.

# DATES:

*Effective Date:*                         0901 UTC October 26, 2006.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Larry Tonish, Western Terminal Operations Airspace Specialist, AWP-5201.1, Federal Aviation Administration, 15000 Aviation Boulevard, Lawndale, California 90261, telephone (310) 725-6539.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The FAA published this direct final rule with a request for comments in the                     **Federal Register**                     on July 18, 2006 (71 FR 40653). The FAA uses the direct final rulemaking procedure for a non-controversial rule where the FAA believes that there will be no adverse public comment. This direct final rule advised the public that no adverse comments were anticipated, and that unless a written adverse comment, or a written notice of intent to submit such an adverse comment, were received within the comment period, the regulation will become effective on October 26, 2006, as per that direct final rule. No adverse comments were received, and thus this notice confirms that this direct final rule will become effective on that date.                

Issued in Los Angeles, California, on August 23, 2006.

Leonard Mobley,

Acting Area Director, Western Terminal Operations.

[FR Doc. 06-7457 Filed 9-5-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
§ 68.418 Procedure; designation of agents for service. ( a ) The Commission shall promptly forward any informal complaint meeting the requirements of § 68.17 to each responsible party named in or determined by the staff to be implicated by the complaint. Such responsible party or parties shall be called on to satisfy or answer the complaint within the time specified by the Commission.
( b ) To ensure prompt and effective service of informal complaints filed under this subpart, every responsible party of equipment approved pursuant to this part shall designate and identify one or more agents upon whom service may be made of all notices, inquiries, orders, decisions, and other pronouncements of the Commission in any matter before the Commission. Such designation shall be provided to the Commission and shall include a name or department designation, business address, telephone number, and, if available, TTY number, facsimile number, and Internet e-mail address. The Commission shall make this information available to the public.
[66 FR 7587, Jan. 24, 2001, as amended at 73 FR 25591, May 7, 2008]
#### Copeland Construction Company, Inc., Plaintiff, *v.*Port of New York Authority, Defendant.

Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County,

October 19, 1970.

*Sidney Goldstein*and *Bernard Biberman*for defendant. *Fuller é Lawton (Margo Moraitis Zahardis*of counsel), for plaintiff.

Arnold L. Fein, J.

Motion by defendant, pursuant to CPLR 5019, to modify the judgment so as to correct the rate of interest is granted. Upon trial, plaintiff was awarded judgment of $6,930 with interest, which the clerk computed at the rate of 6% from May, 1963 to June 30, 1968, at 7%% from July 1, 1968 to February 15, 1969, and at 7%% from that date to the date of judgment. Defendant claims it is a public corporation and that the legal interest rate against it is limited to 4%, pursuant to chapter 585 of the Laws of New York, 1939.

Defendant meets all the requirements of a “ public corporation *”, It was*created *by compact between the*States of New York and New Jersey, enacted by their respective Legislatures, and approved by Congress. It is governed by a commission composed of six Commissioners appointed by each of the two State Governors. In *Commissioner of Internal Revenue*v. *Shamberg’s Estate*(144 F. 2d 998, cert. den. 323 U. S. 792) the Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed at length the history and powers of defendant, stating at page 1000: *“*The port authority shall be regarded as the municipal corporate instrumentality of the two states ”. At page 1003, the court listed some of the characteristics which' evidenced its nature as a public corporation, e.g., members of the Authority’s uniformed police force are designated as regular police and peace officers in both States, its property and bonds are tax exempt, it has the power of condemnation, and its employees may join the New York State Retirement System.

Chapter 585 of the Laws of New York, 1939 defines: “ The term (public corporation ’ as used in this act shall mean and include every corporation created for the construction of public improvements * * * and possessing both the power to *437contract indebtedness and the power to collect rentals, charges, rates or fees for services or facilities furnished or supplied.”

Defendant, as a public corporation, is subject to an interest charge limited to the rate of 4%.
Your session is about to expire.Resume session

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                Welcome.Log inorregisterCOPS OFFICE RESOURCE CENTER

HomeCatalogCartOrders

                    

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                CatalogMatches: 1Offline form Recent Popular Online Print OtherCOPS-W0907HIPAA Considerations for Law Enforcement During the COVID-19 PandemicHIPAA Considerations for Law Enforcement during the COVID-19 Pandemic breaks down the important information you need to know regarding the proper and legal disclosure to law enforcement of protected health information. This tool was developed through the COPS Office Collaborative Reform Initiative Technical Assistance Center (CRI-TAC).By Collaborative Reform Initiative Technical Assistance Center (CRI-TAC)Categories: Police OperationsLanguage: EnglishPublic linkhttps://portal.cops.usdoj.gov/resourcecenter?item=cops-w0907Click here to see the entire catalog.Cart:Download PDFWeb • Oct 2020Search catalogreset title abstract authors contentContaining text: exact phraseNot containing text: exact phraseLanguage:anyEnglishSpanishHmongVietnameseCategory:anyAlternatives to IncarcerationCommunity PartnershipsData and AnalysisEthics and IntegrityFoundations of Community PolicingHiring, Recruitment, and RetentionHomeland SecurityNew Immigrant CommunitiesNonviolent CrimeOtherPolice OperationsPOP Center ResourceSchool and Campus SafetyTechnologyTribalViolent CrimeYouth SafetyPublished after:Published before:Page1

                    

FOIA | No FEAR Act | Open Government | Privacy | Legal|HelpCopyright (C) U.S. Department of Justice, COPS Office, IT Division, 2012 - 2024. All rights reserved.
Rendered on Mon Mar 4 2024 at 00:57 (UTC-5) in 0.20 secEnterprise Framework 3.21.7.7 • Store Controls 3.3.1.7Survey 500303407 Section 60000560 Rules Hints Inactive
No. 10-8150.

#### Cohen *v.*Federal Express Corp.

C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.

Justice Sotomayor took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 24.1

                               POWER OF ATTORNEY

     Each person whose signature appears below hereby constitutes and appoints
Stanley Goldberg and Mark G. Eisenschenk and each of them, his true and lawful
attorneys-in-fact and agents, with full power of substitution and re-
substitution for him and in his name, place and stead, in any and all
capacities, to sign the Ringer Corporation (the "Company") Annual Report on Form
10-KSB for the year ended September 30, 1997 (the "1996 Form 10-KSB") under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and any and all amendments thereto,
and to file such 1997 Form 10-KSB and any and all such amendments, with all
exhibits thereto, and all other documents in connection therewith, with the
Securities and Exchange Commission, state securities administrations and any and
all other agencies or administrations as may be deemed necessary or advisable by
said attorneys-in-fact and agents, and each of them, granting unto said
attorneys-in-fact and agents, and each of them, full power and authority to do
and perform each and every act and thing requisite or necessary to be done in
and about the premises, as fully to all intents and purposes as he might or
could do in person, hereby ratifying and confirming all that said attorneys-in-
fact and agents, or either of them, or their or his substitutes, may lawfully do
or cause to be done by virtue hereof.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Power of Attorney has been signed on the 8th day
of December 1997, by the following persons:


/S/ Gordon F. Stofer                     /S/ Robert W. Fischer
---------------------------              ---------------------------
Gordon F. Stofer                         Robert W. Fischer

/S/ Stanley Goldberg                     /S/ Donald E. Lovness
---------------------------              ---------------------------
Stanley Goldberg                         Donald E. Lovness

/S/ John R. Hetterick                    /S/ Franklin Pass
---------------------------              ---------------------------
John R. Hetterick                        Franklin Pass

/S/ Frederick F. Yanni, Jr.              /S/ Richard Mayo
---------------------------              ---------------------------
Frederick F. Yanni, Jr.                  Richard Mayo
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.2






                       REPORT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS
<PAGE>

Exhibit 99.2

                       Report of Independent Accountants


To the Board of Directors and Shareholders of GA Financial, Inc.

In our opinion, the accompanying consolidated statement of financial condition
and the related consolidated statements of income and comprehensive income,
shareholders' equity and cash flows present fairly, in all material respects,
the financial position of GA Financial, Inc. and subsidiaries (the Company) at
December 31, 1998, and the results of their operations and their cash flows for
each of the two years in the period ended December 31, 1998 in conformity with
accounting principles generally accepted in the United States. These financial
statements are the responsibility of the Company's management; our
responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on
our audits. We conducted our audits of these statements in accordance with
auditing standards generally accepted in the United States, which require that
we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the
financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includes
examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in
the financial statements, assessing the accounting principles used and
significant estimates made by management, and evaluating the overall financial
statement presentation. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis
for the opinion expressed above.


/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
January 27, 1999
except as to the information
presented in Note 19, for which
the date is February 26, 1999
No. 11-5697.

#### Blackburn *v.*Alabama.

Ct. Crim. App. Ala. Certiorari denied.
**Exhibit 23**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent to the incorporation by reference inRegistration Statement Nos: 333-61054, 333-43790, 333-112361, and 333-12179 each on From S-3, and Registration Statement Nos. 333-82283 and 333-16935 each on Form S-8, of our report dated April 6, 2007 relating to the consolidated financialstatements of BSML Inc. (formerly Britesmile, Inc.) and Subsidiaries as of December 30, 2006 and for fiscal year then ended appearing in this Annual report on Form 10-K of BSML Inc. and Subsidiaries for fiscal year ended December 30, 2006.

/s/ Stonefield Josephson Inc. 

CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

Los Angeles , California 

April 6, 2007
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ANDRES DE JESUS MEJIA

- CASTILLO ; et

al.,

Petitioners,

v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney

General,

Respondent. No. 20

- 73716

Agency Nos. A209

- 835

- 409

A209

- 835

- 408

A209

- 838

- 699

A209

- 838

- 700

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted March 14, 2023 * *

Before: SILVERMAN, SUNG, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges.

Andres De Jesus Mejia

- Castillo and three family members , native s and

citizen s of El Salvador , petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration

Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion to reconsider. Our jurisdiction is

governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

MAR 20 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 20

- 73716

motion to reconsider. Mohammed v. Gonzales , 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2005).

We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to

reconsider where they failed to identify any error of law or fact in the prior

decision. See Ma v. Ashcroft , 361 F.3d 553, 558 (9th Cir. 2004) (“A petitioner’s

motion to reconsider mus t identify a legal or factual error in the BIA’s prior

decision.”) ; 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1) (same).

We lack jurisdiction to consider any challenge to the BIA’s August 31,

2020, order dismissing petitioners’ appeal from an immigration judge’s decision

denyi ng their applications for asylum and related relief because petitioners did not

file a petition for review as to that order. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1); Martinez

Serrano v. INS , 94 F.3d 1256, 1258 (9th Cir. 1996) (time limit for filing a petition

for revie w is “mandatory and jurisdictional”).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part

.
No. 11-8135.

#### Randolph *v.*United States.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
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 Transportation

###### Federal Aviation Administration

# AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

# ACTION:

Notice of intent of waiver with respect to land.

# SUMMARY:

The FAA is publishing notice of proposed release of 31.413 acres of land at the Raleigh County Memorial Airport, Beckley, West Virginia to the Raleigh County Airport Authority and the Raleigh County Commission for the development of an industrial park. There are no impacts to the Airport and the land is not needed for airport development as shown on the Airport Layout Plan. Fair Market Value of the land will be paid to the Raleigh County Airport and the Raleigh County Commission, and used for Airport purposes.

# DATES:

Comments must be received on or before September 27, 2006.

# ADDRESSES:

Comments on this application may be mailed or delivered in triplicate to the FAA at the following address: Connie Boley-Lilly, Program Specialist, Federal Aviation Administration, Beckley Airports District Office, 176 Airport Circle, Room 101, Beaver, West Virginia 25813.

In addition, one copy of any comments submitted to the FAA must be mailed or delivered to Thomas Cochran, Airport Manager, Raleigh County Memorial Airport at the following address: Thomas Cochran, Airport Manager, Raleigh County Memorial Airport, 176 Airport Circle, Room 105, Beaver, West Virginia 25813.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Connie Boley-Lilly, Program Specialist, Beckley Airport District Office, (304) 252-6216 ext. 125, FAX (304) 253-8028.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

On April 5, 2000, new authorizing legislation became effective. That bill, the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century, Public Law 10-181 (April 5, 2000; 114 Stat. 61) (AIR 21) requires that a 30 day public notice must be provided before the Secretary may waive any condition imposed on an interest in surplus property.

Issued in Beckley, West Virginia on July 14, 2006.

Matthew P. DiGiulian,

Acting Manager, Beckley Airport District Office, Eastern Region.

[FR Doc. 06-7206 Filed 8-25-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
§ 87.323 Frequencies. ( a ) 121.500 MHz: Emergency and distress only.
( b ) The frequencies 121.950, 123.300 and 123.500 MHz are available for assignment to aviation support stations used for pilot training, coordination of lighter-than-air aircraft operations, or coordination of soaring or free ballooning activities. Applicants for 121.950 MHz must coordinate their proposal with the appropriate FAA Regional Spectrum Management Office. The application must specify the FAA Region notified and the date notified. Applicants for aviation support land stations may request frequency(ies) based upon their eligibility although the Commission reserves the right to specify the frequency of assignment. Aviation support mobile stations will be assigned 123.300 and 123.500 MHz. However, aviation support mobile stations must operate only on a noninterference basis to communications between aircraft and aviation support land stations.
( c ) The frequency 122.775 MHz and, secondary to aeronautical multicom stations, the frequency 122.850 MHz are available for assignment to aviation support stations. These frequencies may be used for communications between aviation service organizations and aircraft in the airport area. These frequencies must not be used for air traffic control purposes or to transmit information pertaining to runway, wind or weather conditions.
( d ) The frequency 3281.0 kHz is available for assignment to aviation support stations used for coordination of lighter-than-air aircraft operations.
[53 FR 28940, Aug. 1, 1988, as amended at 63 FR 68958, Dec. 14, 1998]
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-2350

JAMES SEMME FRAZIER,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

RICHARD DANZIG, SECRETARY OF THE NAVY,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T.S. Ellis, III, District Judge.

(CA-99-1973-A)

Submitted: April 12, 2001 Decided: April 17, 2001

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Semme Frazier, Appellant Pro Se. Edward John Martin, OFFICE

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

James Semme Frazier appeals the district court’s order granting Secretary Richard J. Danzig of the Department of the Navy his

motion to dismiss or in the alternative for summary judgment. We

have reviewed the record and the district court’s order and find no

reversible error. We find that the district court did not abuse

its discretion by denying Frazier’s motion for a stay of the proceedings. We further find that Frazier failed to establish that

the legitimate non-discriminatory reason given for his removal was

a pretext for discrimination. Accordingly, we affirm. 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.

AFFIRMED
32.1     Certification of the Chief Executive Officer of Genesis Capital
         Corporation of Nevada pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes Oxley Act
         of 2002


                            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 on Form  10-QSB/A of Genesis  Capital
Corporation of Nevada (the "Company") for the quarter ended December 31, 2005 as
filed with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the
"Report"),  the undersigned  Richard Astrom,  Chief Executive Officer of Genesis
Capital Corporation of Nevada,  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 results of operations of the Company.

Dated: September 21, 2006

                                      /s/ RICHARD ASTROM
                                      -----------------------
                                      Richard Astrom
                                      Chief Executive Officer