alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
September 4, 2015

Mr. Tim Weston

President

TLW PRODUCTIONS, Inc.

401 Whitney Avenue, Suite 110

Gretna, LA 70056

Dear Mr. Weston :

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your petition for an exemption from

§ § 61.113(a) and (b), 91.7(a), 91.119(c), 91.121, 91.151(a), 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1),

91.409(a)(1) and (2), and 91.417(a) and (b) of Title 14, Code of Federal Re gulations

(14 CFR). It explains why we can not process your request and what you should do in the next

30 days.

Why We Can No t Process Your Request

We received your June 12, 2015, exemption request on behalf of TLW PRODUCTIONS , Inc.

filed in D ocket No

. FAA− 20 15

− 2402 , but we are unable to process your request any further.

Your petition does no t comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to

consider the request any further, you must send us all of the following:

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would

benefit the public as a whole.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

For more detailed information relating to submitting petitions for exemption, please visit

http://aes.faa.gov/petition/index.html . This website helps the petitioner to meet Federal

Aviation Administration (FAA) requirements outlines in § 11.81 and helps an swer any

questions you may have.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must submit the requested information

within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption

at least 120 d ays before the proposed effective date of the exemption.2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further.

If you have any questions you may call the 333 Information Line (202) 267

- 2999.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brittany Newton

Program Analyst, Airmen and

Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure3
Order entered June 30, 2015

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**
No. 05
- 15
- 00217
- CV TRU EXPLORATION, LLC , TRU EXPLORATION "C REATING TRU PARTNERS ", LLC, TRENT TRUBENBAC H AND DONNA BURTON, Appellant s V. ENERGY EXPLORATION I , LLC AND ENERGY EXPLORATI ON II, LLC, Appellee s On Appeal from the 416th Judicial District Court Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 416
- 00031
- 2015 

### O RDER This is an appeal from the trial court’s order denying appellants’ motion to stay litigation and c ompel arbitration. By letter filed April 20, 2015, appellees inform the Court they have agreed to arbitrate the claims at issue in the dispute between the parties . Th ey contend that decision has rendered the appeal moot , and, as a result, they have not f iled their responsive brief to appellant’s brief on the merits

. They further state they will submit, if the Court deems necessary, a motion to dismiss the appeal. We construe appellees’ letter as a motion to dismiss and DENY the motion

. See VE Corp. v. Ernst & Young , 860 S.W.2d 83, 84 (Tex. 1993) (per curiam); Halliburton Co. v. KBR,Inc. , 446 S.W.3d 551, 561 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] 2014, no pet.). We ORDER appellees to file their brief no later than July 30, 2015.

/s/ CRAIG STODDART JUSTICE
§ 411.61 Staff reporting duties. ( a ) All care provider facility staff, volunteers, and contractors must immediately report to ORR according to ORR policies and procedures and to State or local agencies in accordance with mandatory reporting laws: any knowledge, suspicion, or information regarding an incident of sexual abuse or sexual harassment that occurred while a UC was in ORR care; retaliation against UCs or staff who reported such an incident; and any staff neglect or violation of responsibilities that may have contributed to an incident or retaliation. ORR must review and approve the care provider facility's policies and procedures and ensure that the care provider facility specifies appropriate reporting procedures.
( b ) Care provider facility staff members who become aware of alleged sexual abuse or sexual harassment must immediately follow reporting requirements set forth by ORR's and the care provider facility's policies and procedures.
( c ) Apart from such reporting, care provider facility staff must not reveal any information related to a sexual abuse or sexual harassment report to anyone within the care provider facility except to the extent necessary for medical or mental health treatment, investigations, notice to law enforcement, or other security and management decisions.
( d ) Care provider facility staff must report any sexual abuse and sexual harassment allegations to the designated State or local services agency under applicable mandatory reporting laws in addition to law enforcement and the State and local licensing agency.
( e ) Upon receiving an allegation of sexual abuse or sexual harassment that occurred while a UC was in ORR care, the care provider facility head or his or her designee must report the allegation to the alleged victim's parents or legal guardians, unless ORR has evidence showing the parents or legal guardians should not be notified or the victim does not consent to this disclosure of information and is 14 years of age or older and ORR has determined the victim is able to make an independent decision.
( f ) Upon receiving an allegation of sexual abuse or sexual harassment that occurred while a UC was in ORR care, ORR will share this information with the UC's attorney of record within 48 hours of learning of the allegation unless the UC does not consent to this disclosure of information and is 14 years of age or older and ORR has determined the victim is able to make an independent decision.
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

APTIV SERVICES 5 US, LLC,

Appellant

v.

MICROCHIP TECHNOLOGY, INC.,

Cross-Appellant

______________________

2019-1537, 2019-1538, 2019-1601, 2019-1603

______________________

Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Nos. IPR2017-

00861, IPR2017-00864.

______________________

JUDGMENT

______________________

SCOTT ANTHONY MCKEOWN, Ropes & Gray LLP, Washington, DC, argued for appellant. Also represented by 

DOUGLAS HALLWARD-DRIEMEIER; JAMES LAWRENCE DAVIS,

JR., HENRY HUANG, East Palo Alto, CA. 

 BRIAN C. BANNER, Slayden Grubert Beard PLLC, Austin, TX, argued for cross-appellant. Also represented by 

BRUCE W. SLAYDEN, II. 

 ______________________

Case: 19-1537 Document: 52 Page: 1 Filed: 03/05/2020
THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is 

ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

 PER CURIAM (LOURIE, MOORE, and CHEN, Circuit 

Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT 

 March 5, 2020 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

 Date Peter R. Marksteiner

 Clerk of Court 

Case: 19-1537 Document: 52 Page: 2 Filed: 03/05/2020
#### § 109.205 Inspection of boilers and machinery.

The chief engineer or engineer in charge, before he assumes charge of the boilers and machinery of a unit shall inspect the boilers and machinery, other than industrial machinery, and report to the master or person in charge and the Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection, any parts that are not in operating condition.
#### § 140.650 Operational readiness of lifesaving and fire suppression and detection equipment.

The owner, managing operator, or master of a towing vessel must ensure that the vessel's lifesaving and fire suppression and detection equipment complies with the applicable requirements of parts 141 and 142 of this subchapter and is in good working order.
#### Osborn v. Keech.

*Judgment—on conflicting evidence*sustained— *Contract—claim on not barred by claimants denial*— *Consideration.*

Where the evidence before the referee as to the value of services was conflicting, *held,*that the finding would be sustained where, after considering the whole evidence, the court could not say it wase erroneous. *Bruyn*v. *Comstock,*56 Barb. 9; *Foote*v. *Roberts,*7 Robt. 17.

Where plaintiff had performed services for defendant at his request, and held a legal demand against defendant for their reasonable value, *held,*that a subsequent statement by plaintiff that he made no claim in respect thereto, founded on no consideration, was no defense to an action for such services. *Cole*v. *Sackett,*1 Hill, 517; *Bunge*v. *Koop,*48 N. Y. 225, and cases cited.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon the report of a referee.

The action was brought by Charles H. Osborn against Thomas Keech to recover for services.

*David McAdam,*for appellant.

*N. B. Sanborn*and *Oscar Smedberg,*for respondent.

Lawrence, J.

The head-note states fully the only questions passed upon in the opinion. . *Judgment affirmed.*
§ 111.103-1 Power ventilation systems except machinery space ventilation systems. Each power ventilation system that is not a machinery space ventilation system must have: ( a ) A control to stop the ventilation that is: ( 1 ) Outside the space ventilated; and
( 2 ) Grouped with the controls for every power ventilation system to which this section is applicable; and
( b ) In addition to the control required by paragraph (a), a stop control that is: ( 1 ) As far as practicable from the control required by paragraph (a) and grouped with the controls for every power ventilation system to which this section is applicable; or
( 2 ) The circuit breakers for ventilation grouped on the main switchboard and marked, “In Case of Fire Trip to Stop Ventilation.”
Note:
The requirements of this section do not apply to closed ventilation systems for motors or generators, diffuser fans for refrigerated spaces, room circulating fans, or exhaust fans for private toilets of an electrical rating comparable to that of a room circulating fan.
[CGD 74-125A, 47 FR 15236, Apr. 8, 1982, as amended by USCG-2020-0075, 88 FR 16365, Mar. 16, 2023]
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 32.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         In  connection  with the Quarterly  Report of Health  Express USA, Inc.
(the  "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 29, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  each
of the undersigned,  in the capacities and on the dates indicated below,  hereby
certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:

         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  operation of the
Company.

Date:    August 13, 2003            By:      /s/ Patricia Durante
                                             --------------------
                                    Name:    Patricia Durante
                                    Title:   Chief Financial Officer

         A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or
other  document  authentications,   acknowledging,  or  otherwise  adopting  the
signature  that  appears in typed form  within  the  electronic  version of this
written  statement  required by Section 906, has been provided to Health Express
USA, Inc. and will be retained by Health  Express USA, Inc. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

                                      D-1
Opinion issued August 29, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-12-00246-CR

———————————

HARRY MALONE, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 185th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1338323

MEMORANDUM OPINION

A jury found appellant, Harry Malone, guilty of the offense of burglary of a 

habitation. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 30.02(a)(1), (c)(2) (West 2011). 

Appellant then pleaded true to the allegations in two enhancement paragraphs, and 
2

the jury sentenced him to 35 years in prison. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. 

§ 12.42(d) (West Supp. 2012). Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal.

Appellant’s appointed counsel on appeal has filed a motion to withdraw, 

along with a brief stating that the record presents no reversible error and the appeal 

is without merit and is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 

1396 (1967). 

Counsel’s brief meets the Anders requirements by presenting a professional 

evaluation of the record and supplying us with references to the record and legal 

authority. 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; see also High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 

807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Counsel indicates that he has thoroughly 

reviewed the record and he is unable to advance any grounds of error that warrant 

reversal. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; Mitchell v. State, 193 

S.W.3d 153, 155 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.).

We have independently reviewed the entire record in this appeal, and we

conclude that no reversible error exists in the record, there are no arguable grounds 

for review, and the appeal is frivolous. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 

1400 (emphasizing that reviewing court—and not counsel—determines, after full 

examination of proceedings, whether appeal is wholly frivolous); Garner v. State, 

300 S.W.3d 763, 767 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (reviewing court must determine 

whether arguable grounds for review exist); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 
3

826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (same); Mitchell, 193 S.W.3d at 155 (reviewing 

court determines whether arguable grounds exist by reviewing entire record). We 

note that an appellant may challenge a holding that there are no arguable grounds 

for appeal by filing a petition for discretionary review in the Texas Court of 

Criminal Appeals. See Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 827 & n.6.

We affirm the judgment of the trial court and grant counsel’s motion to 

withdraw.1 Attorney Melissa Martin must immediately send appellant the 

required notice and file a copy of the notice with the Clerk of this Court. See TEX.

R. APP. P. 6.5(c).

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Sharp and Massengale.

Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

 

1 Appointed counsel still has a duty to inform appellant of the result of this appeal 

and that he may, on his own, pursue discretionary review in the Texas Court of 

Criminal Appeals. See Ex Parte Wilson, 956 S.W.2d 25, 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 

1997).
The State of 

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

September 2, 2014

No. 04-14-00210-CR

Shanelle COOKS,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 186th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2008CR6210A

Honorable Maria Teresa Herr, Judge Presiding

ORDER

Appellant’s court-appointed attorney has filed a brief and motion to withdraw pursuant to 

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which he asserts there are no meritorious issues to 

raise on appeal. Counsel certifies he has served copies of the brief and motion on appellant has 

informed appellant of her right to review the record and file her own brief, and has explained to 

appellant the procedure for obtaining the record and provided her a form for same. See Kelly v. 

State, No. PD-0702-13, 2014 WL 2865901 (Tex. Crim. App. June 25, 2014); Nichols v. State, 

954 S.W.2d 83 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, no writ); Bruns v. State, 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 

n.1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1996, no writ). 

If appellant desires to file a pro se brief, we order that she do so on or before October 

17, 2014. The State has filed a notice waiving its right to file a brief in this case unless appellant 

files a pro se brief. If appellant files a timely pro se brief, the State may file a responsive brief no 

later than thirty days after appellant’s pro se brief is filed in this court.

We further order the motion to withdraw filed by appellant’s counsel held in abeyance 

pending further order of the court. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80-82 (1988) (holding that 

motion to withdraw should not be ruled on before appellate court independently reviews record 

to determine whether counsel’s evaluation that appeal is frivolous is sound); Schulman v. State, 

252 S.W.3d 403, 410-11 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (same).

We further order the clerk of this court to serve a copy of this order on appellant and all 

counsel. 
_________________________________

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 2nd day of September, 2014.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
EXHIBIT 31.1
                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                               SECTION 302 OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, David A. Baldwin, certify that:

1. I have  reviewed  this annual  report on Form 10-K of CE  Casecnan  Water and
Energy Company, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this 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 report;

3.  Based  on my  knowledge,  the  financial  statements,  and  other  financial
information included in this 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 report;

4.  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-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:

a) Designed such disclosure  controls and procedures,  or caused such disclosure
controls and  procedures to be designed  under our  supervision,  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 report is being prepared;

b) Evaluated  the  effectiveness  of the  registrant's  disclosure  controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions  about the effectiveness
of the disclosure  controls and procedures,  as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; and

c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over
financial  reporting that occurred  during the  registrant's  most recent fiscal
quarter that has  materially  affected,  or is  reasonably  likely to materially
affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent  evaluation of internal  control over  financial  reporting,  to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors
(or persons performing the equivalent function):

a) All  significant  deficiencies  and  material  weaknesses  in the  design  or
operation of internal  control over  financial  reporting  which are  reasonably
likely  to  adversely  affect  the  registrant's  ability  to  record,  process,
summarize and report financial information; and

b) Any  fraud,  whether  or not  material,  that  involves  management  or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's  internal control over
financial reporting.

Dated:  February 9, 2004

                              /s/ David A. Baldwin
                              --------------------
                                David A. Baldwin
                                    President
                            (chief executive officer)
§ 308.1 Self-assessment implementation methodology. ( a ) The IV-D agency must ensure the review meets Federal requirements and must maintain responsibility for and control of the results produced and contents of the annual report.
( b ) *Sampling.* A State must either review all of its cases or conduct sampling which meets the following conditions: ( 1 ) The sampling methodology maintains a minimum confidence level of 90 percent for each criterion;
( 2 ) The State selects statistically valid samples of cases from the IV-D program universe of cases; and
( 3 ) The State establishes a procedure for the design of samples and assures that no portions of the IV-D case universe are omitted from the sample selection process.
( c ) *Scope of review.* A State must conduct an annual review covering all of the required criteria in Sec. 308.2.
( d ) *Review period.* Each review period must cover a 12-month period. The first review period shall begin no later than 12 months after the effective date of the final rule and subsequent reviews shall each cover the same 12-month period thereafter.
( e ) *Reporting.* ( 1 ) The State must provide a report of the results of the self-assessment review to the appropriate OCSE Regional Office, with a copy to the Commissioner of OCSE, no later than 6 months after the end of the review period.
( 2 ) The report must include, but is not limited to: ( i ) An executive summary, including a summary of the mandatory program criteria findings;
( ii ) A description of optional program areas covered by the review;
( iii ) A description of sampling methodology used, if applicable;
( iv ) The results of the self-assessment reviews; and
( v ) A description of the corrective actions proposed and/or taken.