alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Aircraft Management Services, Inc. 

Complainant 

v. 

Santa Rosa County, Florida 

(sponsoring Peter Prince Field) 

Respondent 

FAA Docket No. 16-12-02 

NOTICE OF EXTENSION OF TIME 

This matter is before the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) based on the abovereferenced complaint, filed in accordance with FAA Rules of Practice for Federally-Assisted 

Airport Enforcement Proceedings, 14 CFR, Part 16. Pursuant to 14 CFR, Part 16, subpart B, 

the date by which the Director's Determination will be issued in this matter is hereby 

extended to January 19, 2015. 

An extension of time is necessary and appropriate for a fair and complete determination in 

this case. 

~-t2 ~)~m'J {r, 

Randall· . Fiertz 

Director of Office of Airport Compliance 

and Management Analysis 

10·17 

Date 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

l"li'IL- t- I HEREBY CERTIFY that on October -l--1--, 2014, I caused to be placed in the 

United States mail (first class mail, postage paid) a true copy of the FAA's Request for 

Additional Information and Notice of Extension of Time, addressed to: 

For Complainant 

Ryan P. Hatler 

Michael J. Schofield 

Clark, Partington, Hart, Larry, Bond & Stackhouse 

125 West Romana Street, Suite 800 

P.O. Box 13010 

Pensacola, FL 32591-3010 

For Respondent 

Angela J. Jones 

Santa Rosa County's Attorney's Office 

6495 Caroline Street 

Milton, FL 32570 

Gregory T. Stewart 

Harry F. Chiles 

William Gamer 

Nobors, Giblin & Nickerson, P.A. 

1500 Mahan Drive, Suite 200 

Tallahassee, Fl 32308 

Copy to: 

FAA Part 16 Airport Proceedings Docket 

FAA Airport Compliance and Management Analysis, AC0-1 00 

!/) (l I / . 

(_1

Yitufh/l?f;;t{ 

Claudia Roberts ~ 

Office of Airport Compliance and 

Management Analysis 

•
<PAGE>   1
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2
 
                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
 
     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement
of ITEQ, Inc. on Form S-8 (Files No. 333-09051, 33-68516, 33-68518 and 33-68636)
and the Registration Statement of ITEQ, Inc. on Form S-3 (File No. 333-39367) of
our report dated December 6, 1996, on our audit of the consolidated financial
statements of Astrotech International Corporation and subsidiaries as of
September 30, 1996, and for each of the two years in the period ended September
30, 1996.
 
                                            COOPERS & LYBRAND L.L.P.
 
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
March 23, 1998
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-22-00470-CV

In re Kerry Lynn Gallagher

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM TRAVIS COUNTY

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Relator has filed a petition for writ of injunction seeking to restrain the justice of 

the peace, an attorney, and the State of Texas from taking further action in an underlying eviction 

proceeding. Our injunctive power is limited to preventing a litigant from taking actions. See 

In re Tex. Dep’t of Transp., 583 S.W.3d 794, 798 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2019, orig. proceeding). 

Moreover, Relator has failed to demonstrate our jurisdiction is implicated here or that any 

pending appeal exists before us. In re Olson, 252 S.W.3d 747, 747–48 (Tex. App.—Houston 

[14th Dist.] 2008, orig. proceeding); see also Tex. Gov’t Code § 22.221(a). Accordingly, we 

dismiss the petition for writ of injunction for want of jurisdiction. 

__________________________________________

Darlene Byrne, Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices Triana and Smith

Filed: August 9, 2022
§ 665.206 Gear restrictions. ( a ) *Bottom trawls and bottom set gillnets.* Fishing for Hawaii bottomfish MUS or ECS, or seamount groundfish MUS with bottom trawls and bottom set gillnets is prohibited.
( b ) *Possession of gear.* Possession of a bottom trawl and bottom set gillnet by any vessel having a permit under § 665.203 or otherwise established to be fishing for Hawaii bottomfish MUS or ECS, or seamount groundfish MUS in the management subareas is prohibited.
( c ) *Poisons and explosives.* The possession or use of any poisons, explosives, or intoxicating substances for the purpose of harvesting Hawaii bottomfish MUS or ECS, or seamount groundfish MUS is prohibited.
[84 FR 2772, Feb. 8, 2019]
#### The State *ex rel.*Hewitt, Appellant, v. Hewitt.

Guardian’s Bond: signature of surety obtained by misrepresentation : forgery. A surety in a guardian’s bond cannot avoid liability by showing that he was induced to sign by a representation that a name already on the bond as surety was the genuine signature of the party, when in point of fact it was a forgery, unless it be further shown that the officers of the probate court or the beneficiaries had notice of the representation and its falsity.

*604
      *Appeal from, DeKalb Circuit Court.*— Hon. Joseph P. Q-rubb, Judge.

Reversed.

*Pike & Pike*and *Stephen S. Brown*for appellant.

Norton, J.

This is a suit on a guardian’s bond in which Coen, one of the defendants and sureties, pleads *non est factum,*and the other surety, Fuson, defends on the ground that he was requested on behalf of the guardian to sign the bond as surety, and was induced to do so on the representation that said Coen had signed the bond as surety; that the signature of said Coen to the bond was forged, and that he would not have signed the bond if he had not believed that Coen’s signature was genuine. On the trial, judgment was rendered for defendants, from which plaintiff has appealed.

The error complained of is the refusal of the court to give the following instruction: “That if the jury find from the evidence that said Fuson signed the bond sued on after the name of said defendant Coen Appeared to be signed thereto by his mark, upon the representation of one Robert A. Hewitt, Jr., that said signature was genuine, and that said Fuson was induced by the said representation of said Hewitt to sign the said bond as a co-security with said . Coen', and shall further find that such representation of said Hewitt was false, and that the signature of said Coen was not genuine, but was forged; yet, if they further find from the evidence that said bond was afterward filed in the probate court of this county, and was regular and complete on its face, and that the officers of said court or the beneficiaries in said bond had no notice of said representation of said Hewitt, or the falseness of the signature of said Coen, then, and in that event, the jury are authorized to find for the plaintiff’ as against Fuson, and will assess the damages as stated in instruction number five, given for *605plaintiff.” The question thus presented has been heretofore decided by this court in the case of *State v. Potter,*63 Mo. 212, and *State ex rel. v. Baker,*64 Mo. 167 ; *State ex rel. v. Modrel,*69 Mo. 152. In the light of these authorities the court committed error in refusing said instruction, and in giving instructions for defendant asserting a principle in direct opposition to that contained in the instruction asked for by plaintiff. EdT these errors the judgment is reversed and cause remanded.

All concur.
Rockingham,

No. 4715.

#### State *v.*Charles W. Carkin.

Argued October 6, 1959.

Decided November 3, 1959.

*265
      *Louis C. Wyman,*Attorney General, and *Jarlath M. Slattery,*Assistant Attorney General *{Mr. Slattery*orally), for the State of Now Hampshire.

*Charles J. Griffin*(by brief and orally), for the defendant.

Wheeler, J.

The first contention of the defendant is that after the defendant released to the State his rights of ingress and egress to the Spur Road, prior to the action of the Governor and Council recommitting for assessment of damages the southern section of the Eastern New Hampshire Turnpike, there were no property rights in the defendant subject to condemnation. His second contention is that the conduct of counsel for the State prior to dismissing its appeal led counsel for defendant to believe that the matter of damages was to be determined by jury.

The State’s decision not to construct the service road, resulted in nonperformance of the conditions of the release. The action of the Governor and Council in recommitting the matter for assessment of damages amounted to a waiver of any rights acquired from the defendant by his release. The rights which remained in the defendant were subject to condemnation proceedings.

*266Under the provisions of RSA 233:17 the defendant had a right of appeal to the Superior Court within sixty days after the certificate of tender of the award by the commission had been filed with the Secretary of State. This the defendant failed to do.

While the discussions between counsel for the State and defendant prior to the withdrawal of its appeal tended to indicate a purpose to prosecute its appeal to final judgment, the evidence falls far short of establishing that the defendant was misled thereby or justified in not entering an appeal.

The motion of the State to abandon its appeal was analogous to the right to become nonsuit, and such a right is not open to serious question. *Upper Coos Railroad*v. *Parsons,*66 N. H. 181; *Webster*v. *Bridgewater,*63 N. H. 296.

*Exceptions overruled.*

All concurred.
§ 217.180 Specified activity and specified geographical region. ( a ) Regulations in this subpart apply only to oil and gas industry operators (LOA-holders), and those persons authorized to conduct activities on their behalf, for the taking of marine mammals that occurs in the area outlined in paragraph (b) of this section and that occurs incidental to geophysical survey activities.
( b ) The taking of marine mammals by oil and gas industry operators may be authorized in a Letter of Authorization (LOA) only if it occurs within U.S. waters in the Gulf of Mexico, outside the area subject to a Congressional leasing moratorium under the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act (GOMESA) (Pub L. 109-432, § 104) as of the effective date of these regulations.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                       1,969,323
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  450,595
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,419,918
<PP&E>                                       3,641,365
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,550,111
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,511,172
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          729,893
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,781,279
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,511,172
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               574,643
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               627,343
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (52,700)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (52,700)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (52,700)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-60136

Summary Calendar

 

FREDDIE SIGERS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

MORENOL M. LEWIS; MARIA SERAPIO,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 2:96-CV-109PG

- - - - - - - - - -

October 2, 1998

Before KING, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Freddie Sigers, Mississippi prisoner # 59682A, appeals the

district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for

failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Sigers contends that

Dr. Morenol M. Lewis and Dr. Maria Serapio denied him adequate

medical care for his serious medical needs in violation of his

Eighth Amendment rights. Sigers alleged that he received medical

treatment and pain medication for a back injury but that he

continues to suffer back pain. Sigers’ dissatisfaction or
2

disagreement with the medical treatment or diagnosis he received

does not constitute deliberate indifference to his serious

medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. See Varnado

v. Lynaugh, 920 F.2d 320, 321 (5th Cir. 1991). Unsuccessful

medical treatment, negligence, or medical malpractice are also

insufficient to give rise to a claim of deliberate indifference. 

Id. 

For the first time on appeal, Sigers argues that he did not

receive pain medication for long periods of time. Because

Sigers’ claim involves factual questions which were not resolved

in the district court, he has not demonstrated plain error. See

Robertson v. Plano City of Texas, 70 F.3d 21, 23 (5th Cir. 1995).

Sigers also argues that the district court erred in not

appointing counsel to represent him in the district court. 

Sigers has failed to demonstrate that any exceptional

circumstances existed requiring counsel to be appointed in the

district court. See Ulmer v. Chancellor, 691 F.2d 209, 213 (5th

Cir. 1982).

Sigers’ appeal is without arguable merit and should be

dismissed. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir.

1983). The district court’s dismissal of this case and Sigers’

appeal in this case constitute two strikes against him for

purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Sigers v. Lewis, No. 2:96-

CV-109PG (S.D. Miss. February 19, 1997); see also Adepegba v.

Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 388 (5th Cir. 1996). If a third district

court action or appeal filed by Sigers is dismissed as frivolous,
3

he will be barred from bringing a civil action or appeal as a

prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis unless he is under imminent

danger of serious physical injury. See § 1915(g). Sigers should

review any pending appeals to ensure that they do not raise

frivolous issues.

APPEAL DISMISSED. 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. SANCTION WARNING ISSUED

UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 5181 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 5181

To amend the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act to establish 
    minimum physical activity requirements, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 25, 2024

   Mr. Rubio introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
   referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act to establish 
    minimum physical activity requirements, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Make America Active Again Act''.

SEC. 2. PHYSICAL ACTIVITY REQUIREMENTS FOR SCHOOLS PARTICIPATING IN THE 
              NATIONAL SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAM.

    Section 9 of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42 
U.S.C. 1758) is amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(m) Physical Activity Requirements.--A school participating in 
the school lunch program under this Act with students in any of grades 
kindergarten through grade 5 shall ensure an opportunity during the 
school day for physical activity, in the form of physical education 
courses or recess periods, of not less than 150 minutes per week for 
students in those grades.''.

SEC. 3. LOCAL SCHOOL WELLNESS POLICIES.

    Section 9A(c) of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act 
(42 U.S.C. 1758b(c)) is amended by inserting ``, including to meet the 
minimum requirements for physical activity pursuant to section 9(m)'' 
before the period at the end.
                                 <all>
```
I, Ron Jorgensen, certify that:

- I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of E-Com Technologies Corporation;
- Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly report; 
- Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report; 
- The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:

- designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared; 
- evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and
- presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

- The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

- all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and 
- any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and

- The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

 

Dated: October 15, 2003

/s/ Ron Jorgensen

Ron Jorgensen, Chief Financial Officer
Case 16-25993 Doc 1 Filed 08/12/16 Entered 08/12/16 16:11:30 Desc Main

 Document Page 1 of 10
Case 16-25993 Doc 1 Filed 08/12/16 Entered 08/12/16 16:11:30 Desc Main

 Document Page 2 of 10
Case 16-25993 Doc 1 Filed 08/12/16 Entered 08/12/16 16:11:30 Desc Main

 Document Page 3 of 10
Case 16-25993 Doc 1 Filed 08/12/16 Entered 08/12/16 16:11:30 Desc Main

 Document Page 4 of 10
Case 16-25993 Doc 1 Filed 08/12/16 Entered 08/12/16 16:11:30 Desc Main

 Document Page 5 of 10
Case 16-25993 Doc 1 Filed 08/12/16 Entered 08/12/16 16:11:30 Desc Main

 Document Page 6 of 10
Case 16-25993 Doc 1 Filed 08/12/16 Entered 08/12/16 16:11:30 Desc Main

 Document Page 7 of 10
Case 16-25993 Doc 1 Filed 08/12/16 Entered 08/12/16 16:11:30 Desc Main

 Document Page 8 of 10
Case 16-25993 Doc 1 Filed 08/12/16 Entered 08/12/16 16:11:30 Desc Main

 Document Page 9 of 10
Case 16-25993 Doc 1 Filed 08/12/16 Entered 08/12/16 16:11:30 Desc Main

 Document Page 10 of 10
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 187 / Wednesday, September 27, 2006 / Notices 56507 

[FR Doc. 06–8320 Filed 9–26–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–C 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Office of the Secretary 

Defense Business Board; Notice of 

Advisory Committee Meeting 

Cancellation 

AGENCY: Department of Defense. 

ACTION: Notice of meeting cancellation. 

SUMMARY: On September 20, 2006, the 

Department of Defense published a 

notice of meeting (71 FR 54980) 

scheduled for September 28, 2006. Due 

to inability to achieve a quorum the 

meeting was cancelled. This notice 

announces the cancellation. This 

meeting may be rescheduled and 

announced at a later date. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kelly Van Niman, Executive Director, 

DBB, 703–697–2346 or 

Kelly.vanniman@osd.mil. 

Dated: September 21, 2006. 

C.R. Choate, 

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison 

Officer, Department of Defense. 

[FR Doc. 06–8290 Filed 9–26–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–M 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Office of the Secretary 

Defense Science Board 

AGENCY: Department of Defense. 

ACTION: Notice of Advisory Committee 

Meeting Date Change. 

SUMMARY: On Thursday, August 17, 

2006 (71 FR 47491) the Department of 

Defense announced a meeting of the 

Defense Science Board (DSB) Task Force 

on Defense Industrial Structure for 

Transformation. The October 2006 

meeting date have been revised from 

October 10, 2006 to October 10 and 11, 

2006. The task force will meet in closed 

session. The meeting will be held at the 

Pentagon on October 10, 2006; and 

Science Applications International 

Corporation (SAIC), 4001 N. Fairfax 

Drive, Arlington, VA on October 11, 

2006. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: MAJ 

Chad Lominac, USAF, Defense Science 

Board, 3140 Defense Pentagon, Room 

3C553, Washington, DC 20301–3140, via 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICESEN27SE06.116</GPH>
# EUR-Lex - 12004V176 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 12004V176

**Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe - PART III — THE POLICIES AND FUNCTIONING OF THE UNION - TITLE III — INTERNAL POLICIES AND ACTION - CHAPTER I — INTERNAL MARKET - Section 7 — Common provisions - Article III-176 **

*
Official Journal 310 , 16/12/2004 P. 0075 - 0075 *

Article III-176

In the context of the establishment and functioning of the internal market, European laws or framework laws shall establish measures for the creation of European intellectual property rights to provide uniform intellectual property rights protection throughout the Union and for the setting up of centralised Union-wide authorisation, coordination and supervision arrangements.

A European law of the Council shall establish language arrangements for the European intellectual property rights. The Council shall act unanimously after consulting the European Parliament.

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