alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
INSPECTION FLOW CHART

Check of the

AOT A53W001‐12 ‐ Appendix 2

Check of the

maintenance records

Aircraft already repaired

as per SB Ref.1 or Ref.2, or

l f No further action No earlier revisions, in frame

base fittings area 1?

No further action

Perform a one‐time DET in

2 f th i d f

Yes

area 2 of the repaired frame

base fittings between FR41

and FR46

No further action Cracks? Contac

No Yes

Send Inspection Report given

in Appendix 3 to Airbus
No. 11-9805.

#### Walker *v.*Nunn, Warden, et al.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### Daniel T. Utley and Matilda J. Utley, joined by her husband Daniel T. Utley, R. J. McCutoheon, Jr., Addie L. Miller, wife of M. P. Miller; W. A. Miller, R. L. Miller and Elizabeth Bell, nee Elizabeth Miller, wife of W. J. Bell, *Appellants,*vs. City of St. Petersburg, a Municipal Corporation, *Appellee.*

144 So. 57.

Opinion filed October 1, 1932.

Petition for rehearing denied October 25, 1932.

*L. T). Martin,*for Appellants;

*Erie B. Askew,*and *Carroll R. Runyon,*for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

The appeal in this case is from an order dismissing a Bill of Complaint. The Bill of Complaint sought a decree holding void certain special assessments imposed by the defendant for street improvements, holding the lien claimed by the defendant pursuant to such assessments to be of no effect and to cancel the assessment cerlicates issued pursuant to such assessment.

The assessment was made under authority of chapter 9914 Acts of 1923. The assessments appear to have been in some repects irregular. It is doubtful that Chapter 14392, Acts of 1929, ratified and validated these assessments as that Act might be held not to apply to special improvements but chapter 15511, Acts of 1931, was and is sufficient in its terms to validate and ratify the assessment here com*883plained of. See Lainhart vs. Catts, 73 Fla. 735, 75 Sou. 47; Dover Drainage District vs. Pancoast, 102 Fla. 267, 135 Sou. 518; Martin v. Dade Muck Land Co., 95 Fla. 530, 116 Sou. 449.

In this case the assessment was based on the front foot rule and, therefore, the inequality of assessment complained o'f by reason of complainant’s property being of greater depth than other property has no basis in fact as it would have, had the special assessment been based in area as was the case of Gast Realty & Investment Co. et al. vs. Cheneider Granite Co., 240 U. S. 55, 60 Law Ed. 523.

The decree should be affirmed on authority of the opinion and judgment in the Florida cases above cited. It is sc? ordered.

Affirmed.

Buford, C.J. and Whitfield, Terrell and Davis, J.J., concur.

Ellis and Brown, J.J., dissent.
§ 76.1618 Basic tier availability. A cable operator shall provide written notification to subscribers of the availability of basic tier service to new subscribers at the time of installation. This notification shall include the following information: ( a ) That basic tier service is available;
( b ) The cost per month for basic tier service;
( c ) A list of all services included in the basic service tier.
Order entered March 31, 2014

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**
No. 05
- 14
- 00045
- CV IRA W. BREWER, EUGEN IA BREWER AND ALL OT HER OCCUPANTS, Appellant s V. U.S. BANK, N.A., AS TRUSTEE FOR THE CERT IFICATEHOLDERS OF TH E BEAR STERN S ARM TRUST, ET AL., Appellee On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5 Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 005
- 01529
- 2013 

### O RDER Before the Court is appellants’ March 24, 2014 unopposed motion to extend time to file brief. Appellants seek an extension to April 4, 2014. Our records reflect that on March 24, 2014, we granted appellants’ March 21, 2014 extension motion and extended the deadline to file the brief to April 4, 2014 as appellants requested. Because the relief appellants are seeking in their current motion has been previously granted, we DENY the motion as moot.

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG

- MIERS JUSTICE
No. 11-5754.

#### Moore *v.*United States.

C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
Antelope ValleyAirQuality Management District 43301 Division St., Suite 206 Lancaster, CA 93535-4649 661.723.8070 Fax 661.723.3450
Eldon Heaston, Executive Director September 23, 2013 Patrick Au State ofCalifornia Environmental Protection Agency Air Resources Board P. 

### 0. Box 2815 Sacramento, California 95812 ProjectTitle: Rescission ofAVAQMD Rule 1110

- Emission From StationaryInternal Combustion Engines (Demonstration) Dear Mr. Au: The Antelope Valley Air Quality Management District (AVAQMD) requests that the California Air Resources Board submit rescinded Rule 1110

- Emission From Stationary Internal Combustion Engines (Demonstration), to the United States Environmental Protection Agency for removal from the State Implementation Plan (SIP). The AVAQMD has rescinded Rule 1110 to remove a rule that is inapplicable due to the termination ofthe program prior to the formation of the AVAQMD and the fact that none ofthe program engines were located within what is now thejurisdiction ofthe AVAQMD. Ifyou have any questions regarding this submittal, please contact me at (661) 723-8070, extension 2, or Barbara Lods at extension 3. Please note that all documents required for a complete submission were sent electronically on September 23 , 2013
.

Bret Banks Operations Manager

BSB/bl CARB SIP Submittal Request AV Rule 1110



## Clean Cities Antelope Valley
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 08-3571

___________

Glenn Ronald Waite, MD, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Nebraska.

Douglas D. DeLair; Delair & Delair, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: October 19, 2009

Filed: October 22, 2009

___________

Before WOLLMAN, RILEY, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Glenn Waite appeals the district court’s1

 denial of his motion for declaratory

relief. Upon careful review of the record, see Frulla v. CRA Holdings Inc., 543 F.3d

1247, 1251 (11th Cir. 2008) (standard of review), including Waite’s prior

unsuccessful appeal, see Waite v. DeLair, No. 00-3183, 3 Fed. Appx. 574 (8th Cir.

2001) (unpublished per curiam), we conclude that the instant appeal is governed by

the law-of-the-case doctrine, see Jones v. United States, 255 F.3d 507, 510 (8th Cir.

2001) (all issues decided by appellate court become law of the case; this rule extends

1

The Honorable Richard G. Kopf, United States District Judge for the District

of Nebraska. 
not only to actual holdings but also to all issues implicitly settled in prior holdings);

United States v. Bartsh, 69 F.3d 864, 866 (8th Cir. 1995) (law-of-the-case doctrine

prevents relitigation of settled issue in case and requires courts to adhere to decisions

made in earlier proceedings). Accordingly, we affirm. 

______________________________

-2-
David M. Kirstein 

Direct 202.331-3348 

Fax 202.331.3933 

Email dkirstein@yklaw.com 

April 6, 2010 

BY ELECTRONIC FILING

Ms. Dorothy Beard 

Docket Management System 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Ave., S.E. 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

RE: Polling Results for Exemption Application of vivaAerobus

DOT-OST-2010-0082

Dear Ms. Beard: 

This is to advise that we have completed our polling of the carriers on vivaAerobus’s 

application for Exemption authority to provide air transportation service between Monterrey, 

Mexico–Houston, Texas. There are no objections. 

 Sincerely, 

 

 David M. Kirstein 

 

cc: George Wellington by email 

Robert Finamore by email 

Linda Lundell by email 

Thuy Cooper by email 

Service List
No. 11-5677.

#### Rogers *v.*Ingolia et al.

C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
<PAGE>
Exhibit 21

SUBSIDIARIES                                           INCORPORATED JURISDICTION

Celadon E-Commerce, Inc.                                         DE

Celadon Jacky Maeder Company                                     NY

Celadon Logistics, Inc.                                          DE

Celadon Air Mexicana, S.A. de C.V.                               Mexico

Celadon Transportation, L.L.P.                                   IN

Celadon Trucking Services, Inc.                                  NJ

Celadon Trucking Services of Indiana, Inc.                       IN

Celadon CT&L, Inc.                                               DE

Celadon Canada, Inc.                                             Ontario, Canada

International Freight Holding Corporation                        DE

JML Freight Forwarding, Inc.                                     NY

Leasing Servisio, S.A. de C.V.                                   Mexico

Randy Express, Inc.                                              NY

RIL Acquisition Corp.                                            DE

RIL, Inc.                                                        DE

Servicios de Transportacion Jaguar, S.A de C.V.                  Mexico

TruckersB2B, Inc.                                                DE

Zipp Realty LLC                                                  IN
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED JANUARY 31, 2023

NO. 03-22-00674-CV

Joseph Thompson and Thompson Custom Properties, LLC, Appellants

v.

Greg L. Gibson; DSRE Funding LLC; High Equity Investments, LLC; DSRE Holdings, 

LLC; DSRE Homes LLC; DSRE Centex Partners, LLC; GLG Investments LLC; Direct 

Effect LLC; Direct Effect Real Estate Services LLC; Clay Carter; and Marcia Trejo, 

Appellees

APPEAL FROM THE 21ST DISTRICT COURT OF BASTROP COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES BAKER, KELLY, AND SMITH

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION -- OPINION BY JUSTICE KELLY

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the trial court on October 12, 2022. Having 

reviewed the record, it appears that the Court lacks jurisdiction over the appeal. Therefore, the 

Court dismisses the appeal for want of jurisdiction. Appellants shall pay all costs relating to this 

appeal, both in this Court and in the court below.
# **EXHIBIT 32.1**

** **

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OFTHE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Interactive Intelligence, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the period ending September 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Dr. Donald E. Brown,Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)          The Report fully  complies withthe  requirements  of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)          The information  contained  in the  Report  fairly  presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations ofthe Company.

 
| /s/ Donald  E. Brown, M.D              |   |
|----------------------------------------|--------|
| Donald E.  Brown, M.D.                 |
| President  and Chief Executive Officer |
| November 15,  2004                     |

 

----
exv10w23



 





Exhibit 10.23




Second Amendment to Contingent Asset Sale Agreement




     This Second Amendment to Contingent Asset Sale Agreement is made effective February 26, 2007
by and between Alderwoods Group (California), Inc., a California corporation (“Seller”), and
Carriage Cemetery Services, Inc., a Texas corporation (“Buyer”);



     WHEREAS, SCI Funeral Services, Inc. (“SCI Funeral Services”) and the Buyer entered into an
Contingent Asset Sale Agreement dated November 22, 2006 (the “Agreement”); and



     WHREAS, the Seller executed a Seller Joinder assuming all obligations of the Seller under the
Agreement, whereupon SCI Funeral Services was released therefrom; and



     WHEREAS, the parties amended the Agreement pursuant to the First Amendment dated January 22,
2007; and



     WHEREAS, Seller and Buyer wish to further amend the Agreement in the manner set forth below;



     NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and agreements herein contained, the Parties,
intending to be legally bound, hereby agree to amend certain sections of the Agreement as follows:



     1. The references to “March 15, 2007” in Sections 2.1 and 9.1(b)(vii) of the Agreement are
hereby amended to read “March 30, 2007.”



     2. The references to “February 28, 2007” in Sections 9.1(b)(iii) and 9.1(c)(iii) of the
Agreement are hereby amended to read “March 21, 2007.”



     3. Except as hereinabove specifically amended, the Agreement is and shall remain in full force
and effect according to its terms and conditions, all of which are hereby ratified and confirmed by
the parties.



     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed and delivered this Second Amendment to
Contingent Asset Sale Agreement on the date and year first above mentioned.



	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	BUYER:	 	 	 	SELLER:	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Carriage Cemetery Services, Inc.	 	 	 	Alderwoods Group (California), Inc.	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	By:

	 	     /s/ W. Clark Harlow
 

W. Clark Harlow, Vice President
	 	 	 	By:
	 	      /s/ Lori E. Spilde
 

Lori E. Spilde, Vice President
	 	 






 









 





     SCI California Funeral Services, Inc., Guarantor of Seller’s obligations under the Agreement,
hereby joins in the execution of this Second Amendment to acknowledge the amendments to the
Agreement made hereby.



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	SCI California Funeral Services, Inc.

 	 
	 	By:  	     /s/ Lori E. Spilde
 	 
	 	 	Lori E. Spilde, Vice President 	 
	 	 	 	 
	 




-2-
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 158 (Wednesday, August 16, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47247-47248]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-6944]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE


Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree Under the Oil Pollution Act 
and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act

    In accordance with Departmental policy, 28 CFR 50.7, notice is 
hereby given that on August 1, 2006, a proposed Consent Decree 
(``Decree'') in United States v. ConocoPhillips Company, Civil Action 
No. 06-CV-195-J was lodged with the United States District Court for 
the District of Wyoming.
    The Decree resolves the United States' claims against 
ConocoPhillips Company (``Conoco'') under Section 1002 of the Oil 
Pollution Act of 1990 (``OPA''), 33 U.S.C. 2702, and Section 311 of the 
Federal Water Pollution Control Act, more commonly known as the Clean 
Water Act (``CWA''), 33 U.S.C. 1321, for past response costs incurred 
at the Glenrock Oil Seep Site outside Glenrock, Wyoming. The Decree 
requires Conoco to pay the United States $1,037,500 and to release any 
claims it might have (1) against the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund 
relating to the Site or (2) arising out of response actions at the Site 
for which past costs were incurred.
    The Department of Justice will receive for a period of thirty (30) 
days from the date of this publication comments relating to the Decree. 
Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, 
Environment and Natural Resources Division, P.O. Box 7611, U.S. 
Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20044-7611, and should refer to 
United States v. ConocoPhillips Company, D.J. Ref. 90-5-1-1-08459.
    The Decree may be examined at the Office of the United States 
Attorney, 2120 Capitol Ave., 4th Floor, Cheyenne, Wyoming 82001. During 
the public comment period, the Decree, may also be examined on the 
following Department of Justice Web site, http://

[[Page 47248]]

www.usdoj.gov/enrd/Consent--Decrees.html. A copy of the Decree may also 
be obtained by mail from the Consent Decree Library, P.O. Box 7611, 
U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20044-7611 or by faxing or 
e-mailing a request to Tonia Fleetwood (<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#572338393e3679313b3232232038383317222433383d79303821"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="becad1d0d7df90d8d2dbdbcac9d1d1dafecbcddad1d490d9d1c8">[email protected]</span></a>), fax 
no. (202) 514-0097, phone confirmation number (202) 514-1547. In 
requesting a copy from the Consent Decree Library, please enclose a 
check in the amount of $4.50 payable to the U.S. Treasury.

Robert D. Brook,
Assistant Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section, Environment and 
Natural Resources Division.
[FR Doc. 06-6944 Filed 8-15-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-15-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
291P15

#### John Richard Jordan and Danny Dwight Jordan v. Raymond Baxter Jordan

Pit’s (John Richard Jordan) *Pro Se*PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 (COA15-108)

Denied
117P16

#### B S K Enterprises, Inc., and B. Kelley Enterprises, Inc. v. Beroth Oil Company

1. Pits’ PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 (COA15-189)

1. Denied

2. Def’s PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31

2. Denied
|  |
|--|

| **Home** | **Instruments** | **Science** | **Experiments** | **SiteMap** |
|----------|-----------------|-------------|-----------------|-------------|

> Annual Reports
The annually published NCNR Accomplishments and Opportunities reporthighlights scientific research at the Center, lists publications,provides a table of current research titles, and gives information oninstrumentation and other developments.  The reports are available inprinted form from the contact listed on the opening page. 

- FY2015

- FY2014

- FY2013 

- FY2012 (low res, 7MB)
- FY2012 (high res, 41MB)

- FY2011 (low res, 6MB)
- FY2011 (high res, 43MB)

- FY2010 (low res, 8MB)
- FY2010 (high res, 39MB)

- FY2009

- FY2008

- FY2007

- FY2006

- FY2005

- FY2004
- FY2004 Research Topics

- FY2003
- FY 2003   Research Highlights -- HTML format/ ADA ready

- FY 2002
- FY 2002   -- HTML format/ ADA ready

- FY 2001 
- FY 2001  -- HTML format/ ADA ready

- FY 2000  
- FY 1999   
- FY 1998   

To download the latest version of  Acrobat Reader     
Last modified 01-February-2016 by website owner: NCNR (attn: Przemek Klosowski)
#### WILLIAM L. McINTYRE AND WILLIAM M. GAWTRY, Appellants, v. CLARENCE OGDEN, PHILOMENA OGDEN AND WILLIAM N. BERRIAN, Respondents.

*Matter will nob be stricken out of an answer as irrelevant, when it is responsive to iml&oant matter in the complaint.*

Appeal from an order denying an application to strike out part of the answer of the defendant Ogden, as irrelevant and redundant.

The court at General Term said: “ The disposition made of this motion by the court below, must, we think, prevail. The irrelevant and redundant matter contained in the answer, and of which the plaintiffs complain, was a response to irrelevant and redundant matter contained in the complaint. This, we think, is a sufficient answer to the appeal taken in this case. The plaintiff, having unnecessarily loaded his complaint with allegations not essential to his success, cannot complain if defendant answers them by responses which are proper in themselves, considered in relation to the matter which provokes them.”

*Henry H.*Morange, for the appellants. *George TV. Sandford,*for the respondents.

Opinion

*Per Quriam.*

Present — Brady, P. J., and Ingalls, J.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.
**Exhibit99.1**

Certification of Chief Executive Officer ofCommercial National Financial Corporation

Pursuant to18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to

Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with theQuarterly Report on Form 10-K of Commercial National FinancialCorporation (the “Corporation”) for the period endingSeptember 30, 2002 (the “Report”), I, Louis T. Steiner,Chief Executive Officer of the Corporation certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
| (1) |   | The Report fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and                                                           |
|-----|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| (2) |   | The information containedin the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of CommercialNational Financial Corporation. |
|  |   | /s/ Louis T.Steiner    |   |
|--|--------|------------------------|--------|
|  |   | Louis T.Steiner        |   |
|  |   | Chief ExecutiveOfficer |   |
|  |   | March 28, 2003         |   |

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 has been provided toCommercial National Financial Corporation and will be retained byCommercial National Financial Corporation and furnished to theSecurities and Exchange Commission or its staff uponrequest.
##### 



EXHIBIT 11

STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS

|                                                        |  |                    |            |                    |  |   |            |  
|------------------------------------------------------- |  | ------------------ | ---------- | ------------------ |  | - | ---------- | -
|                                                        |  | For the            |            | For the           
|                                                        |  | Three Months Ended |            | Three Months Ended
|                                                        |  | March 31,          |            | March 31,         
|                                                        |  | 2003               |            | 2002              
|                                                        |  |                    |            |                   
|Net loss                                                |  | $                  | (24,560    | )                  |  | $ | (40,573    | )
|Actual outstanding common shares at beginning of period |  |                    | 50,004,474 |                    |  |   | 50,004,474 |  
|Weighted basic and diluted shares                       |  |                    | 50,004,474 |                    |  |   | 50,004,474 |  
|Basic and diluted loss per share                        |  | $                  | 0.00       |                    |  | $ | 0.00       |  

16
No. 10-11196.

#### Holland v. Tucker, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, et al.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.