alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NO. 07-07-0199-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL B

JUNE 7, 2007

______________________________

KENDRICK JERMAINE FULTON, 1995 CHEVROLET BLAZER

VIN: 1GNDT13W1S2180389 TEXAS TAG: 5GN S11, APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

_________________________________

FROM THE 320 DISTRICT COURT OF POTTER COUNTY; TH

NO. 94,782-D; HONORABLE DON EMERSON, JUDGE

_______________________________

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Kendrick Jermaine Fulton, filed a notice of appeal on May 15, 2007. He

did not pay the filing fee required under Rule 5 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure

or file an affidavit of indigence in conformity with Rule 20.1. Nor did he file a docketing

statement as required by Rule 32.1. By letter from this Court dated May 15, 2007, we

advised appellant the “filing fee in the amount of $125.00 has not been paid. Failure to pay

the filing fee within ten (10) days from the date of this notice may result in dismissal.” TEX.

R. APP. P. 42.3(c). The letter also directed him fo file a docketing within ten (10) days.
2

Appellant has not filed a docketing statement, paid the fee as directed or filed an affidavit

of indigence. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c).

Mackey K. Hancock

 Justice
#### Thomas W. Murray v. Lititz Mutual Insurance Company, a corporation of the State of Delaware.

*448
      *(September*10, 1948.)

Layton, J., sitting.

*Ernest V. Keith*for Plaintiff.

*Max Terry*for Defendant.

Superior Court for Kent County,

No. 57,

October Term, 1946.

*449Layton, J.:

I find no ambiguity in the language of the clause under consideration. In the plainest of terms it requires that all actions by insureds for losses occasioned by fire be commenced within twelve months of the date of the fire.

Moreover, the very great weight of authority in the country is to the effect that provisions in insurance policies requiring actions for loss to be instituted within a time less than the period of limitations prescribed by statute are valid if the period provided for in the policy is reasonable. See 29 Am. Jur. Insurance, Sec. 1392, and cases there cited. Compare *Emory v. Glens Falls Ins. Co.,*7 *Penn.*101, 76 *A.*230; *Downs v. German Alliance Ins. Co.,*6 *Penn.*166, 67 A. 146. A one year period for the commencement of such actions has been held to be reasonable in numerous jurisdictions. In my opinion the provision in this policy requiring suit to be brought within one year from the date of the loss is valid and binding upon the Plaintiff.

*450Nor is Defendant estopped from asserting its defense. Conceding that an insurance company may waive, or otherwise by its conduct, be estopped from asserting defenses based upon conditions contained in its policies, Emory v. Glens Falls Ins. Co., *swpra,*this case presents no such circumstances. On September 22, 1944, three months subsequent to the fire, it offered to compromise. Plaintiff’s claim for his loss. Twelve days later Plaintiff wrote to Defendant refusing the offer and stating that it was his hope that the Defendant would immediately reconsider and allow a higher figure. Defendant never answered Plaintiff’s letter of October 4, 1944, which may be considered in the nature of a counter-offer. The time within which Plaintiff was obliged to bring suit under the terms of the policy expired on June 22, 1945. Counter-offers are deemed to remain open for a reasonable time only. Having received no reply to his letter of October 4, 1944, for over eight and one-half months, Plaintiff could not be heard to say that he was misled into refraining from filing his action for the reason that negotiations for settlement were still in progress. *Gooden v. Amoskeag Fire Ins. Co.,*20 *N. H.*73; *Friedberg v. Insurance Co. of North America,*257 *Mich.*291, 241 *N. W.*183; *Nott v. National Fire Ins. Co. of Hartford,*150 *Misc.*273, 268 *N. Y. S.*65.

The motion to dismiss is accordingly granted.
EXHIBIT 32.1





Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


(18 U.S.C. Section 1350)








In connection with the quarterly report of Heartland, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Terry Lee, Chief Executive Officer 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:





·
The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





·
The information in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Date: August 16, 2010





/s/ Terry Lee


Chief Executive Officer and Chairman


(Principal Executive Officer)
§ 1002.35 Alcoholic beverages and controlled substances. ( a ) *Alcoholic beverages.* ( 1 ) The use and possession of alcoholic beverages within the area administered by the Presidio Trust is allowed in accordance with the provisions of this section.
( 2 ) The following are prohibited: ( i ) The sale or gift of an alcoholic beverage to a person under 21 years of age, except where allowed by State law. In a State where a lower minimum age is established, that age limit will apply for purposes of this paragraph.
( ii ) The possession of an alcoholic beverage by a person under 21 years of age, except where allowed by State law. In a State where a lower minimum age is established, that age will apply for purposes of this paragraph.
( 3 ) ( i ) The Board may close all or a portion of a public use area or public facility within the area administered by the Presidio Trust to the consumption of alcoholic beverages and/or to the possession of a bottle, can or other receptacle containing an alcoholic beverage that is open, or that has been opened, or whose seal is broken or the contents of which have been partially removed. Provided however, that such a closure may only be implemented following a determination made by the Board that: ( A ) The consumption of an alcoholic beverage or the possession of an open container of an alcoholic beverage would be inappropriate considering other uses of the location and the purpose for which it is maintained or established; or
( B ) Incidents of aberrant behavior related to the consumption of alcoholic beverages are of such magnitude that the diligent application of the authorities in this section and §§ 1001.5 and 1002.34 of this chapter, over a reasonable time period, does not alleviate the problem.
( ii ) A closure imposed by the Board does not apply to an open container of an alcoholic beverage that is stored in compliance with the provisions of § 1004.14 of this chapter.
( iii ) Violating a closure imposed pursuant to this section is prohibited.
( b ) *Controlled substances.* The following are prohibited: ( 1 ) The delivery of a controlled substance, except when distribution is made by a practitioner in accordance with applicable law. For the purposes of this paragraph, delivery means the actual, attempted or constructive transfer of a controlled substance whether or not there exists an agency relationship.
( 2 ) The possession of a controlled substance, unless such substance was obtained by the possessor directly, or pursuant to a valid prescription or order, from a practitioner acting in the course of professional practice or otherwise allowed by Federal or State law.
( c ) Presence within the area administered by the Presidio Trust when under the influence of alcohol or a controlled substance to a degree that may endanger oneself or another person, or damage property or resources of the area administered by the Presidio Trust, is prohibited.
# EUR-Lex - 12008E110 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 12008E110

**Consolidated version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union - PART THREE: UNION POLICIES AND INTERNAL ACTIONS - TITLE VII: COMMON RULES ON COMPETITION, TAXATION AND APPROXIMATION OF LAWS - Chapter 2: Tax provisions - Article 110 (ex Article 90 TEC) **

*
Official Journal 115 , 09/05/2008 P. 0093 - 0093 *

Article 110

(ex Article 90 TEC)

No Member State shall impose, directly or indirectly, on the products of other Member States any internal taxation of any kind in excess of that imposed directly or indirectly on similar domestic products.

Furthermore, no Member State shall impose on the products of other Member States any internal taxation of such a nature as to afford indirect protection to other products.

--------------------------------------------------
#### § 291.2 Authorities.

The regulations in this part are promulgated pursuant to the Omnibus Public Lands Act, Title VI, subtitle D on Paleontological Resources Preservation, 16 U.S.C. 470aaa through 16 U.S.C. 470aaa-11, which requires the Secretary to issue such regulations as are appropriate to carry out the Act.
SERVED: April 15, 2015 · 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC ;-"~-~ :·)."f A·~ 30 '·· , .... ' .. ' ..... " ' : . -.. ' . .._, 

In The Matter Of: 

DGD,INC. 

Respondent 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. FAA-2014-0684 

Case No. 2009S070013 

ORDER DISMISSING PROCEEDING 

On March 19,2015, an Order Setting Deadlines for Filing Materials was filed. This 

Order set deadlines for the Respondent to file an Answer and a Request to Accept Late Answer, 

as well as a deadline for the FAA to respond. 

On April14, 2015, the FAA filed a Withdrawal Complaint [sic]. 

After reviewing all relevant caselaw, decisions, regulations, statutory authority, and being 

fully advised; 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 

1. Any remaining deadlines set by the Order Setting Deadlines for Filing Materials are 

cancelled. 

2. Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 13.215, the FAA has withdrawn its Complaint, and this 

proceeding is dismissed with prejudice. 

Attachment: Service List 
i 

j 

SERVICE LIST- BY U.S. MAIL 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W10001 

Ms. Rashawn George 

Complainant's Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Office ·of the Regional Counsel, ASO-7 

Southern Region 

1701 Columbia Avenue 

College Park, GA 30337 

TEL: 404-305-5200 

FAX: 404-305-5223 

DGD, Inc., Respondent 

Attn: Luis D. Lopez, President 

1325 N.W. 78th Avenue, Suite 104 

Dora!, FL 3 3126 

TEL: 888-219-4544 

FAX: 786-999-8893 

Judge J.E. Sullivan 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

Office ofHearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-6941 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

ONE COPY 

Docket No. FAA-2014-0684 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, s.w., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1000, Washington, DC 

20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. 

--------- ---------
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 32.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                        PURSUANT TO 18U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Ace Marketing & Promotions, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2008 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Dean L. Julia, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, 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.

                                                /S/ DEAN L. JULIA
                                                --------------------------------
                                                DEAN L. JULIA
                                                CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                                                NOVEMBER 14, 2008
Part II, Section A, Item 1/d – Process Description- Manufacturing

Raw Material CAS # Kg/batch 

 

 Total Liquid kgs 

 

 

 

REACTOR

RECEIVER 

FILTER 

FILLING

1

3

2
Exhibit A

Diatone 500mm(NAZA V2)

Frame: Diatone 500

Motors: T-Motor MT2216 900kv

Flight Controller: Naza V2

10x5 Graupner props

ESCs: Hobby King F30

Battery: 5000mah 30c 4S

Radio Controller: Taranis plus
FILED

September 26, 1997

Cecil Crowson, Jr.

Appellate Court Clerk

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT KNOXVILLE 

 MAY 1997 SESSION

ROBERT DALE CHRISTOPHER,)

)

Appellant, ) No. 03C01-9608-CC-00306

 )

) Cocke County

v. ) 

) Honorable Rex Henry Ogle, Judge 

)

STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) (Post-Conviction)

) 

Appellee. )

For the Appellant: For the Appellee:

Joseph S. Ozment Charles W. Burson

217 Exchange Avenue Attorney General of Tennessee

Memphis, TN 38105 and

Georgia Blythe Felner

Assistant Attorney General of Tennessee 

450 James Robertson Parkway

Nashville, TN 37243-0493

Alfred C. Schmutzer, Sr.

District Attorney General

301 Sevier County Courthouse

Sevierville, TN 37862

and

Richard R. Vance

Assistant District Attorney General

339A Main Street

Newport, TN 37821

OPINION FILED:____________________

AFFIRMED

Joseph M. Tipton

Judge
2

O P I N I O N

The petitioner, Robert Dale Christopher, appeals as of right from the

dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief by the Circuit Court for Cocke County

as being untimely filed. He contends that his petition was timely under the 1995 PostConviction Procedure Act as interpreted in Arnold Carter v. State, No. 03C01-9509-CC00270, Monroe County (Tenn. Crim. App. July 11, 1996). The trial court is affirmed.

The petitioner collaterally attacks his 1985 convictions for third degree

burglary and attempt to commit a felony. He filed his petition on May 7, 1996. Under

this court’s opinion in Carter, the petition would have been deemed timely because it

was filed within one year of the effective date of the 1995 Act. However, the

Tennessee Supreme Court reversed this court and concluded that the 1995 Act did not

reinstate a filing period for post-conviction cases relative to convictions for which the

former three-year post-conviction statute of limitations had run. Arnold Carter v. State, 

No. 03-S-01-9612-CR-00117, Monroe County (Tenn. Sept. 8, 1997) (for publication). 

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. 

______________________________

Joseph M. Tipton, Judge

CONCUR:

_____________________________

Joe B. Jones, Presiding Judge

_____________________________

Curwood Witt, Judge
### Karl Malamud - Roam, IR - 4 Project

John Carroll, USDA Reducing contact with vectors reduces human disease  Individual actions can help, but are often inadequate  Vector eradication is rarely possible, but vector control reduces disease  Disease vectors cross property lines, and are therefore community problems Protecting communities from vectors and vector- borne diseases often requires community- wide integrated action  IVM elements  Surveillance  Exclusion & Repellents  Biological Control  Chemical Control 100 years of publicly funded mosquito control  Malaria  Arboviruses  West Nile Virus.  Can this model work to protect us from Lyme Disease and other tick- borne diseases? Public Education  Land - use Planning  Deer Population Management  Biological control  etc??? Barriers  Tick control on deer  Tick control on rodent nest material  Tick control using rodent feed  Area - wide chemical control of ticks  Etc.1. Do we know enough to recommend vector control by local governments as a strategy to reduce the risk of Lyme and other tick- borne diseases ? In what conditions?2. What needs to be done to develop, evaluate, and promote these recommendations? Who will do this?3. What research is needed to determine which control options will be cost - effective in which conditions? How should we measure effectiveness?
§ 228.51 Bonding. ( a ) *Bond requirements.* Before operations may begin under any contract or permit, a bond must be furnished to the authorized officer to ensure performance of payment (as necessary), reclamation, and other conditions of the contract or permit, except as noted in paragraphs (a) (1) and (3) of this section, where the authorized officer may waive such bonding. If an extension of time is granted as provided in § 228.53(b), the bond requirements must be recalculated and changed accordingly. ( 1 ) For *advance payment contracts* for 10,000 cubic yards or more in volume (or weight equivalent), a bond of not less than 10 percent of the total contract price or the value of the estimated annual production (whichever is less), plus the reclamation cost for the area covered by annual mining, is required. When the total volume is less than 10,000 cubic yards, bond requirements, if any, are at the discretion of the authorized officer.
( 2 ) For any *deferred payment contract,* a bond equaling the value of the estimated annual production plus the reclamation cost for the area covered by annual mining is required.
( 3 ) For *free use,* the authorized officer may require a reclamation bond which must be sufficient to cover the cost of reclamation of the anticipated annual work.
( b ) *Types of bonding.* A bond must be one of the following: ( 1 ) A bond of a corporate surety shown on the latest approved list issued by the U.S. Treasury Department and executed on an approved standard form;
( 2 ) A cash bond;
( 3 ) Negotiable securities of the United States;
( 4 ) An irrevocable letter of credit acceptable to the Forest Service;
( 5 ) A performance bond required by other Forest Service contracts or permits, provided the bond covers the performance and reclamation requirements related to the removal of mineral material from a designated pit or area for use in the performance of the contract or permit; or
( 6 ) Any other types of bond specified in the Forest Service Manual.
§ 22.878 Obligation to abate unacceptable interference. This section applies only to commercial aviation ground stations transmitting in the 849-851 MHz band, other than commercial aviation ground stations operating under the authority of a license originally granted prior to January 1, 2004. ( a ) *Strict responsibility.* Any licensee who, knowingly or unknowingly, directly or indirectly, causes or contributes to causing unacceptable interference to a non-cellular part 90 licensee in the 800 MHz band, as defined in § 22.877, shall be strictly accountable to abate the interference, with full cooperation and utmost diligence, in the shortest time practicable. Interfering licensees shall consider all feasible interference abatement measures, including, but not limited to, the remedies specified in the interference resolution procedures set forth in § 22.879. This strict responsibility obligation applies to all forms of interference, including out-of-band emissions and intermodulation.
( b ) *Joint and Several responsibility.* If two or more licensees, whether in the commercial aviation air-ground radiotelephone service or in the Cellular Radiotelephone Service (see § 22.971), knowingly or unknowingly, directly or indirectly, cause or contribute to causing unacceptable interference to a non-cellular part 90 licensee in the 800 MHz band, as defined in § 22.877, such licensees shall be jointly and severally responsible for abating interference, with full cooperation and utmost diligence, in the shortest practicable time. ( 1 ) This joint and several responsibility rule requires interfering licensees to consider all feasible interference abatement measures, including, but not limited to, the remedies specified in the interference resolution procedures set forth in § 22.879(c). This joint and several responsibility rule applies to all forms of interference, including out-of-band emissions and intermodulation.
( 2 ) Any licensee that can show that its signal does not directly or indirectly cause or contribute to causing unacceptable interference to a non-cellular part 90 licensee in the 800 MHz band, as defined in § 22.877, shall not be held responsible for resolving unacceptable interference. Notwithstanding, any licensee that receives an interference complaint from a public safety/CII licensee shall respond to such complaint consistent with the interference resolution procedures set forth in § 22.879.
[70 FR 19411, Apr. 13, 2005]
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-6310

KAMAL PATEL,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

MACK BONNER; ABDUR RAHIM; BUREAU OF PRISONS,

Defendants – Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, 

District Judge. (5:08-ct-03110-BO)

Submitted: January 19, 2011 Decided: April 11, 2011

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kamal Patel, Appellant Pro Se. David T. Huband, BUREAU OF 

PRISONS, Butner, North Carolina, Jennifer P. May-Parker, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for 

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Kamal Patel appeals the district court’s order denying 

relief on his complaint filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown 

Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). 

We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. 

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district 

court. Patel v. Bonner, No. 5:08-ct-03110-BO (E.D.N.C. Jan. 28, 

2010). We deny the motion to supplement the record and dispense 

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before the court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
EXHIBIT 32.1





Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


(18 U.S.C. Section 1350)








In connection with the quarterly report of Heartland, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Terry Lee, Chief Executive Officer 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:





●
The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





●
The information in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Date: May 16, 2011





/s/ Terry Lee


Chief Executive Officer and Chairman


(Principal Executive Officer)