alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 45.35 Seasonal load lines.

Each vessel must have the summer (S), midsummer (MS), intermediate (I), and winter (W) loadlines for fresh water freeboards calculated under [§§ 45.71](/on/2024-09-23/title-46/section-45.71) through [45.75](/on/2024-09-23/title-46/section-45.75) marked in accordance with [§ 45.39](/on/2024-09-23/title-46/section-45.39).

[![](https://img.federalregister.gov/EC01FE91.016/EC01FE91.016_large.png)](https://img.federalregister.gov/EC01FE91.016/EC01FE91.016_original_size.png)
A copy of counsel’s brief has been delivered to Appellant, informing him of his right to

1

file a brief pro se. Appellant has not done so. 

COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

ERIC DONNELL HARRIS,

 Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

 Appellee.

§

§

§

§

§

 § 

No. 08-09-00020-CR

Appeal from the

363rd Judicial District Court

of Dallas County, Texas 

(TC# F-0759223-W) 

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Eric Donnell Harris appeals his conviction for capital murder. Appellant was convicted

by a jury and sentenced by the trial court to imprisonment for life in the Institutional Division of

the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. We affirm.

Appellant’s appointed counsel has filed a brief in which she concludes that the appeal is

frivolous and without merit. Appellate counsel states that she has studied the record and has

found no error preserved for appeal that could serve as grounds for reversible error. The brief

meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493,

reh. denied, 388 U.S. 924, 87 S.Ct. 2094, 18 L.Ed.2d 1377 (1967), by presenting a professional

evaluation of the record, and demonstrating why, in effect, there are no arguable grounds to be

advanced. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex.Crim.App. 1978). A copy of counsel’s brief 1

has been delivered to Appellant, and Appellant has been advised of his right to examine the
-2-

appellate record and file a pro se brief. No pro se brief has been filed. 

We have carefully reviewed the entire record and agree that the appeal is wholly frivolous

and without merit. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex.Crim.App. 2005). 

Further, we find nothing in the record that may arguably support the appeal. Accordingly, we

affirm the trial court’s judgment.

September 30, 2009

DAVID WELLINGTON CHEW, Chief Justice

Before Chew, C.J., McClure, and Rivera, JJ.

(Do Not Publish)
Exhibit 32.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                                   AS ADDED BY
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

      In connection with the Quarterly Report of Jacksonville Bancorp, Inc. (the
"Company")  on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2003, as filed with the
Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  (the  "Report"),  I,  Cheryl  L.  Whalen,
Executive Vice President and Chief  Financial  Officer of the Company,  certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as added by ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

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

2.       To my  knowledge,  the  information  contained  in  the  Report  fairly
         presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
         of  operations  of the Company as of and for the period  covered by the
         report.

Date:  August 13, 2003               By: /s/ Cheryl L. Whalen
      ----------------                   ---------------------------------------
                                         Cheryl L. Whalen, Executive Vice
                                           President and Chief Financial Officer
**Exhibit 31.1****Certification Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**I, Ralph Schmitt, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Sipex Corporation;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded 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 periodspresented in this report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in whichthis report is being prepared;  b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and  c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions): a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.        Date:  August 17, 2006  /s/ Ralph Schmitt  Ralph Schmitt   Chief Executive Officer
# C_2013377EN.01000302.xml

| 21.12.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 377/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 377/3

---

Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 7 November 2013 — Arbos, Gesellschaft für Musik und Theater v European Commission

(Case C-615/12 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Action for damages - Grants made for projects financed by the ‘Culture 2000’ programme - Claims for payment of various sums - Content of the application - Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)

2013/C 377/05

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Arbos, Gesellschaft für Musik und Theater (represented by: H. Karl, Rechtsanwalt)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: W. Mölls and D. Roussanov, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 25 October 2012 in Case T-161/06 Arbos v Commission by which the General Court dismissed the action against the Commission, seeking payment of, first, the sum of EUR 38 585,42 together with interest at the rate of 12 % from 1 January 2001 and the sum of EUR 27 618,91 together with interest at the rate of 12 % from 1 March 2003 and, second, of the sum of EUR 26 459,38 excluding VAT in respect of the fees of lawyers instructed during the pre-litigation procedure — Infringement of Article 44(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court

Arbos

Commission

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The appeal is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | Arbos, Gesellschaft für Musik und Theater, is to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Arbos, Gesellschaft für Musik und Theater, is to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 63, 2.3.2013.

1

---
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

BRAD C. BOSWELL,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D20-1107

[March 17, 2021]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, Okeechobee County; Michael C. Heisey, 

Judge; L.T. Case No. 472009CF000171B.

Brad C. Boswell, Bristol, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Upon review of the record and Appellant’s brief filed on November 30, 

2020, the trial court’s order denying Appellant’s post-conviction motion is 

affirmed.

Affirmed.

LEVINE, C.J., GERBER and FORST, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
§ 4.05-15 Voyage records, retention of. ( a ) The owner, agent, master, or person in charge of any vessel involved in a marine casualty shall retain such voyage records as are maintained by the vessel, such as both rough and smooth deck and engine room logs, bell books, navigation charts, navigation work books, compass deviation cards, gyro records, stowage plans, records of draft, aids to mariners, night order books, radiograms sent and received, radio logs, crew and passenger lists, articles of shipment, official logs and other material which might be of assistance in investigating and determining the cause of the casualty. The owner, agent, master, other officer or person responsible for the custody thereof, shall make these records available upon request, to a duly authorized investigating officer, administrative law judge, officer or employee of the Coast Guard.
( b ) The investigating officer may substitute photostatic copies of the voyage records referred to in paragraph (a) of this section when they have served their purpose and return the original records to the owner or owners thereof.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

LEDELL HAMMOND,

Plaintiff, Case No. 15-12051

v. Paul D. Borman

United States District Judge

CITY OF TROY, ET AL.,

R. Steven Whalen

 Defendants. United States Magistrate Judge

_________________________________/

OPINION AND ORDER 

(1) ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (ECF NO.

66); (2) DISMISSING WITH PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS AGAINST DEFENDANT

A&M TOWING; AND (3) CLOSING THIS CASE

Before the Court is Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen’s Report and Recommendation

recommending that the Court sua sponte dismiss Defendant A&M Towing, the last remaining

defendant in this action, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the claims are “devoid of

merit” and “no longer open to discussion.” (ECF No. 66, Report and Recommendation). Plaintiff

did not file an objection to the Report and Recommendation.

Having reviewed the Report and Recommendation and there being no timely objections

under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and E.D. Mich L.R. 72.1(b), the Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s

Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 66) and DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE the claims against

Defendant A&M Towing and CLOSES this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Paul D. Borman 

PAUL D. BORMAN

Dated: June 7, 2016 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

2:15-cv-12051-PDB-RSW Doc # 67 Filed 06/07/16 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 398
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served upon each attorney or party

of record herein by electronic means or first class U.S. mail on June 7, 2016.

s/Deborah Tofil 

Case Manager

2

2:15-cv-12051-PDB-RSW Doc # 67 Filed 06/07/16 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 399
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

# District: 11
Federal Reserve Bank of: Dallas

## Filings received during the week ending December 24, 2005

|Filer | Filing Type | Filing Proposal | End of Comment Period
|----- | ----------- | --------------- | ---------------------
|NONE 

## Availability of CRA Public Evaluations

|Institution / Location    | RSSDID | Exam Date  | CRAPublic Date | CRARating | Exam Method
|------------------------- | ------ | ---------- | -------------- | --------- | -----------
|FIRST BK, MULESHOE, TEXAS | 946461 | 10/03/2005 | 12/19/2005     | S         | Small Bank 

## CRA Examinations scheduled for     Quarter of

|Institution | Location
|----------- | --------
|NONE       

Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

---

Home Banking information and regulation  Accessibility Contact 
  us
§ 45.147 Hatchway coamings. ( a ) Except where the Commandant determines that the safety of the vessel will not be impaired in any sea condition, each hatchway must have a coaming that is at least— ( 1 ) 18 inches in position 1; and
( 2 ) 12 inches in position 2.
( b ) Each hatchway coaming required by this section must be made of steel or equivalent material.
( c ) The height of these coamings may be reduced or omitted if the Commandant is satisfied that safety of the ship is not thereby impaired in any sea conditions.
AIR-09-260-E 

 August 25, 2010 

 Exemption No. 10124 

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2009-0475 

Mr. Otmar Birkner 

AutoGyro GmbH 

Dornierstrasse 6-14 

31137 Hildesheim 

Germany 

Dear Mr. Birkner: 

This letter is to inform you that we have denied your petition for exemption. It transmits our 

decision and explains its basis. 

The Basis for Our Decision 

By letter dated May 14, 2009, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on 

behalf of AutoGyro GmbH for an exemption from §§ 21.191(i)(3) and 21.193 (e)(1) of 

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). The proposed exemption, if granted, would 

allow AutoGyro GmbH to produce and sell gyroplanes for certification under § 21.191(i) 

without previously having manufactured and assembled a gyroplane of the same make and 

model that has been issued a special airworthiness certificated in the light-sport category 

under § 21.190.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition 

in the Federal Register because the requested exemption would not set a precedent, and any 

delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to AutoGyro GmbH. 

The FAA recently issued a denial of exemption in circumstances similar in all material 

respects to those presented in your petition. In Denial of Exemption No. 10099 (copy 

enclosed), the FAA did not believe it is in the public interest to permit a manufacturer to sell a 

make and model of gyroplane (or aircraft kit), eligible for the issuance of an experimental 

certificate in the light-sport category, if that manufacturer has not yet produced a gyroplane of 

that make and model that meets the accepted consensus standards. 
2 

Having reviewed your reasons for requesting an exemption, I find that— 

• they don’t differ materially from those presented by the petitioner in the enclosed denial of 

exemption; 

• the reasons stated by the FAA for denying the enclosed exemption also apply to the 

situation you present; and 

• a grant of exemption would not be in the public interest. 

Our Decision 

Under the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator 

has delegated to me, I hereby deny your petition AutoGyro GmbH for an exemption from 

14 CFR §§ 21.191(i)(3) and 21.193 (e)(1). 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

K.C. Yanamura 

Acting Director, Aircraft Certification Service 

Enclosure
**The United StatesCommission on Civil Rights**The United States Commission onCivil Rights, first created by the Civil Rights Act of 1957, and reestablishedby the United States Commission on Civil Rights Act of 1983, is an independent,bipartisan agency of the Federal Government. By the terms of the 1983 act, asamended by the Civil Rights Commission Amendments Act of 1994, the Commission ischarged with the following duties pertaining to discrimination or denials of theequal protection of the laws based on race, color, religion, sex, age,disability, or national origin, or in the administration of justice:  investigation of individual discriminatory denials of theright  to vote; study and collectionof information relating to discrimination or denials of the equal protection ofthe law; appraisal of the laws and policies of the United States with respect todiscrimination or denials of equal protection of the law; maintenance of anational clearinghouse for information respecting discrimination or denials ofequal protection of the law; investigation of patterns or practices of fraud ordiscrimination in the conduct of Federal elections; and preparation and issuanceof public service announcements and advertising campaigns to discouragediscrimination or denials of equal protection of the law. The Commission is alsorequired to submit reports to the President and the Congress at such times asthe Commission, the Congress, or the President shall deem desirable.

 

**The State AdvisoryCommittees**An Advisory Committee to theUnited States Commission on Civil Rights has been established in each of the 50States and the District of Columbia pursuant to section 105(c) of the CivilRights Act of 1957 and section 3(d) of the Civil Rights Commission AmendmentsAct of 1994.  The AdvisoryCommittees are made up of responsible persons who serve without compensation.  Their functions under their mandate from the Commission areto:  advise the Commission of allrelevant information concerning their respective States on matters within thejurisdiction of the Commission; advise the Commission on matters of mutualconcern in the preparation of reports of the Commission to the President and theCongress; receive reports, suggestions, and recommendations from individuals,public and private organizations, and public officials upon matters pertinent toinquiries conducted by the State Advisory Committee; initiate and forward adviceand recommendations to the Commission upon matters in which the Commission shallrequest the assistance of the State Advisory Committee; and attend, asobservers, any open hearing or conference that the Commission may hold withinthe State.
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03
- 20
- 00376
- CV

Texas General Land Office and George P. Bush, named in his Official Capacity as Texas Land Commissioner, Appellants

v. City of Houston, Appellee

FROM THE 53RD DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY NO. D
- 1
- GN
- 20
- 003520, THE HONORABLE TIM SULAK, JUDGE PRESIDING

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

PER CURIAM

On Dec ember 2 3 , 2020, we extended the abate ment of this appeal to January 4, 2021, at the parties’ request

. We instructed the parties to file either a status report or motion to dismiss by January 4

.

The parties have filed their Joint Status Report and Second Request for Extension of Abatement. In it, they seek an e xtension of the abatement to be able to file either an updated status report or notice of agreed dismissal on or before January 18 while they “continue working

. . . to determine whether the underlying case can be dismissed by agreement. ”

The Court grants the parties’ request for a second abatement extension and extends
the abatement through and including January 1 9 , 2021 . The parties are ordered to file another
status report, or a motion to dismiss, by that date.2

Before Chief Justice Byrn e , Justices Baker and Kelly
Abated
Filed: January 7 , 202 1
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Alton Thomas Davis, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

November 22, 2010 

y1115 

Order 

 

November 22, 2010 

141180 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 141180 

 COA: 296415 

Genesee CC: 90-042684-FC 

BARRY CARLTON CLARDY, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 21, 2010 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant’s motion 

for relief from judgment is prohibited by MCR 6.502(G).
### UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS WASHINGTON, DC

TRAVEL GROUP, INC., DIB/A REPUBLIC AIR TRAVEL AND SCOT SPENCER AIRLIFT GROUP, INC. AND RICHARD BERNARD 

### UnauthorizedAir Transportation, Unfair andDeceptive Practices and UnfairMethods of Competition, and Violations of Public CharterRules EXPRESS ONE INTERNATIONAL, INC. 

### Unfair andDeceptive Practices and UnfairMethods of Competition, and Violations of Public CharterRules Enforcement Proceeding

STATUS REPORT -.:; j :-.. t ;



### DOT-OST-1995-272 formerly Docket 49233

The Office ofthe Assistant General Counsel for Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings ("Enforcement Office"), pursuantto Your Honor's March 22, 2006, Order staying this proceeding, files this report detailing the current status ofthis proceeding and settlement negotiations. The Department has not ruled on the outstanding motions filed by Respondents and opposed by the Enforcement Office in Ascend Aviation Group, Docket OST-2004- 17486.2 There have been no further settlement discussions. Date: January 6, 2015
Respectfully submitted,



# b~/1-~ Blane Workie Assistant General Counsel for Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings
Vinh Q. Nguyen Senior Trial Attorney United States Department ofTransportation Office ofAviation Enforcement and Proceedings 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. Room 96-429 Washington, D.C. 20590 TEL: 202-366-9342 FPCX: 202-366-71523 DocketNo. DOT-OST-1995-272 I hereby certify that onthis 6th day ofJanuary, 2015, a true and correct copy ofthe foregoing Status Report was served inthe following manner to the following: Original U.S. Department ofTransportation Docket Operations, M-30 West Building Ground Floor Room W12-140 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. Washington, D.C. 20590 By First Class Mail The Honorable Ronnie A. Yoder ChiefAdministrative Law Judge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation Washington, D.C. 20590 TEL: (202) 366-2142 FAX: (202) 366-7536 By First Class Mail Scot Spencer SBD Aircraft Services 255 S Leland Norton Way Sam Bernardino, CA 92408 Scot Spencer 22604 Esplanada Circle Boca Raton, Florida 33433