alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
March 24, 2015

Dennis DeVany U.S. Department ofTransportation Office ofAviation Analysis, X-53 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE Washington, D.C. 20590 Dear Mr. DeVany: 

## 7F15

At the March 11, 2015 meeting, the Hall County Airport Authority Board from the Central Nebraska Regional Airport (GRI) adopted Resolution 15-25 Essential Air Service (EAS) Requestfor Grand Island, NE to the following destination: Air service with American Airlines to provide 13 non-stop round trips perweek on a (44 or 50 seat) regional jetfrom the Central Nebraska Regional Airport in Grand Island, NE (GRI) to Dallas/FortWorth International Airport (DFW) in Dallas/FortWorth, TX. The Airport Authority would like to thank the Department ofTransportation forthe opportunity to submit our request to the preferred hub and aircraft type. Enclosed is a copy of Resolution 15-25from the Hall County Airport Authority Board, a letterofsupport and Resolution 2015-83 from the City ofGrand Island's Mayor and City Council, and a Resolution from the Grand Island Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors. Sincerely submitted, HALL COUNTY AIRPORTAUTHORITY

son, AAE Executive Director MJO:dkp Enclosures

3855 Sky Park Road IGrand Island. NE 68801 IOffice (308) 385-5170 IFax (308) 385-51791 FlyGrandlsland.com____... ·t.

.**~** 

### March 11, 2015

Essential Air Service (EAS) uestfor Grand Island NE


### AUTHORITY ACTION TAKEN: Resolution being the Hall County Airport Authority makes the following recommendation to·the DepartllJent ofTransportation (DOT) for air service atthe Central Nebraska Regional Airport underthe EAS program: Air service with American Airlines to provide 13 nonstop round trips perweek on a (44 or 50 seat) regional jetfrom the Central Nebraska Regional Airport in Grand Island, NE (GRI) to Dallas/FortWorth International Airport (DFW) in Dallas/FortWorth, TX. The term is a two-year period from July 1, 2015 through June 30, 2017 with an annual Federal subsidy of$1 ,270,707.00. The Hall County Airport Authority agrees to waive the right.to hold in American Airlines upon issuance of 120 days notice to terminate service.
Order filed February 4, 2014 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-14-00022-CV

____________

CLAUDIA HARPER, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS INDEPENDENT COEXECUTRIX FOR THE ESTATE OF JAMES WESLEY CLERK, JR., 

AND ALICE CLARK, Appellants

V.

KIRBY CORPORATION AND KIRBY INLAND MARINE, L.P., Appellees

On Appeal from the 11th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2012-09913A

O R D E R

This is an appeal from a summary judgment signed October 28, 2013, and 

made appealable by order of severance signed December 6, 2013. The notice of 

appeal was due January 6, 2014. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1 Appellants’ notice of 

appeal was filed one day late on January 7, 2014. A motion for extension of time is 

“necessarily implied” when the perfecting instrument is filed within fifteen days of 
2

its due date. Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex. 1997). Appellants did 

not file a motion to extend time to file the notice of appeal. While an extension 

may be implied, appellants are still obligated to come forward with a reasonable 

explanation to support the late filing. See Miller v. Greenpark Surgery Center 

Assocs., Ltd., 974 S.W.2d 805, 808 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1998, no 

pet.). 

Accordingly, we ORDER appellants to file a proper motion to extend time 

to file the notice of appeal on or before 10 days after the date of this order. See 

Tex. R. App. P. 26.3;10.5(b). If appellant does not comply with this order, we will 

dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3.

PER CURIAM
# PermitExtensions_4.10.2024

http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary/quick-tip.pdfhttps://elibrary.ferc.gov/https://www.ferc.gov/elibrary-quick-help
No. 56906.

#### Magnolia Liquor Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 179440-K/14041 (New Orleans).

*389Opinion by

Johnson, J.

At the trial the customs inspector who examined the shipment at the time of unlading testified that there was a shortage of eight eases which were not received with the shipment. In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the issues and facts herein are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *Browne Vintners Co., Inc.*(34 C. C. P. A. 112, C. A. D. 351), it was held that duty and internal revenue tax are not assessable upon the eight oases of brandy reported as short at the time the shipment was discharged from the vessel. The protest was sustained to this extent.
No. 57574.

#### W. J. Bush & Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 165359-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of camphor oil the same in all material respects as that the subject of *Orbis Products Corp.*v. *United States*(30 Cust. Ct. 244, C. D. 1527), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
No. 68607.

protests 61/8602, etc. (New York).

#### The Lafayette Brass Mfg. Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of rotary lawn sprinklers or metal parts thereof similar in all material respects to those the subject of *The Durst Mfg. Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(50 CCPA 56, C.A.D. 820), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
<Page>

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the use in this Post-Effective Amendment No. 23 to Registration
Statement No. 33-73568 of Hartford Life and Annuity Insurance Company
Separate Account One on Form N-4, of our report dated March 26, 2003 of
Hartford Life and Annuity Insurance Company relating to the statutory
financial statements as of and for the year ended December 31, 2002 and of
our report dated February 21, 2003 of Hartford Life and Annuity Insurance
Company Separate Account One relating to the financial statements as of and
for the year ended December 31, 2002, appearing in the Statement of
Additional Information, which is a part of such Registration Statement, and
to the reference to us under the headings "Experts" in such Statement of
Additional Information.

Deloitte & Touche LLP
Hartford, Connecticut
October 6, 2003
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Monica Hardaway and Glenn Hardaway v. Deutsche Bank 

National Trust Company as Trustee, In Trust for Registered 

Holders of Long Beach Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-WL1, 

Asset Backed Certificates, Series 2006-WL 1

Appellate case number: 01-17-00677-CV

Trial court case number: 17-CCV-059731

Trial court: County Court at Law No. 4 of Fort Bend County

Appellants, Monica Hardaway and Glenn Hardaway, have filed a notice of appeal 

of the trial court’s final judgment in a forcible detainer proceeding. Appellee, Deutsche 

Bank National Trust Company as Trustee, In Trust for Registered Holders of Long Beach 

Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-WL1, Asset Backed Certificates, Series 2006-WL 1, has filed 

a motion to dismiss the appeal, asserting that it is “moot as there is no actual controversy 

between Appellants and Appellee.” Appellants have filed a “Motion for Additional Time

to Respond” to appellee’s motion. We grant appellants’ motion for additional time to 

respond.

Appellants’ response to appellee’s motion to dismiss is due to be filed no later 

than May 25, 2018.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Terry Jennings

  Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: May 22, 2018
Certification filed December 12 , 201 9



### In The 

# Eleventh Court of Appeals

__________ No. 11

- 1 9

- 00 316

- C R

__________ IN RE C HRISTOPHER COBOS

O riginal Proceeding

C E R T I F I C A T I O N I have reviewed the “Motion to Disqualify or Recuse and Reverse Judgments” filed in this cause on December 5, 2019. To the extent the document seeks my recusal, I have reviewed the document in chambers. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 16.3(b). I
find no reason to r ecuse myself and, under Rule 16.3(b), certify the issue of my
recusal to the entire court for a determination by the other justices of this court. See Manges v. Guerra , 673 S.W.2d 180, 185 (Tex. 1984); McCullough v. Kitzman , 50 S.W.3d 87, 88 (Tex. App.

— Wa co 2001, pet. denied).

/s/ Keith Stretcher
KEITH STRETCHER
JUSTIC E
I

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1004

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow dentists and physicians

to use the cash basis of accounting for income tax purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 4, 1999

Mr. MANZULLO (for himself, Mr. MATSUI, and Mr. CRANE) introduced the

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow dentists and physicians to use the cash basis of accounting

for income tax purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Accounting Fairness

5 for Dentists and Physicians Act of 1999’’.

6 SEC. 2. CASH BASIS OF ACCOUNTING FOR DENTISTS AND

7 PHYSICIANS.

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subsection (b) of section 446 of

9 the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to exceptions
2

•HR 1004 IH

1 to the general rule for methods of accounting) is amended

2 to read as follows:

3 ‘‘(b) EXCEPTIONS.—

4 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—If no method of accounting

5 has been regularly used by the taxpayer, or if the

6 method used does not clearly reflect income, the

7 computation of taxable income shall be made under

8 such method as, in the opinion of the Secretary,

9 does clearly reflect income.

10 ‘‘(2) CERTAIN PHYSICIANS AND DENTISTS.—A

11 person engaged in the trade or business of providing

12 a service as a physician or dentist (within the mean13 ing of paragraph (1) or (2) of section 1861(r) of the

14 Social Security Act) shall not be required to com15 pute income under an accrual method of account16 ing.’’.

17 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by

18 subsection (a) shall apply to taxable years beginning after

19 December 31, 1998.

Æ
I

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1003

To amend the Public Health Service Act to revise the filing deadline for

certain claims under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 4, 1999

Ms. KAPTUR introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Commerce

A BILL

To amend the Public Health Service Act to revise the filing

deadline for certain claims under the National Vaccine

Injury Compensation Program.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Vaccine Injury Com5 pensation Reform Act’’.

6 SEC. 2. STATEMENT OF PURPOSE.

7 The purpose of this Act is to prevent the unfair denial

8 of compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Com9 pensation Program to certain individuals who are diag10 nosed as having vaccine-related injuries more than 36
2

•HR 1003 IH

1 months after the first symptom, manifestation of onset,

2 or significant aggravation of such injuries.

3 SEC. 3. REVISION OF FILING DEADLINE FOR CERTAIN

4 CLAIMS UNDER NATIONAL VACCINE INJURY

5 COMPENSATION PROGRAM.

6 Paragraph (2) of section 2116(a) of the Public

7 Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300aa–16(a)) is amended

8 by striking ‘‘no petition’’ and all that follows in such para9 graph and inserting the following: ‘‘no petition may be

10 filed for compensation under the Program for such injury

11 after the expiration of 36 months after the date on which

12 such injury is diagnosed, except that, if such injury is first

13 diagnosed before the date of the enactment of the Vaccine

14 Injury Compensation Reform Act, no petition may be filed

15 for compensation under the Program for such injury after

16 the expiration of 36 months after the latest of—

17 ‘‘(A) the date on which such injury is diag18 nosed,

19 ‘‘(B) the date of the occurrence of the first

20 symptom or manifestation of onset or of the

21 significant aggravation of such injury, or

22 ‘‘(C) the date of the enactment of the Vac23 cine Injury Compensation Reform Act, if such

24 injury is first diagnosed after the expiration of
3

•HR 1003 IH

1 36 months after the date referred to in sub2 paragraph (B), and’’.

Æ
106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 100

AN ACT

To establish designations for United States Postal

Service buildings in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 100

AN ACT

To establish designations for United States Postal Service

buildings in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 100 EH

1 SECTION 1. ROXANNE H. JONES POST OFFICE BUILDING.

2 (a) DESIGNATION.—The United States Postal Serv3 ice building located at 2601 North 16th Street, in Phila4 delphia, Pennsylvania, shall be known and designated as

5 the ‘‘Roxanne H. Jones Post Office Building’’.

6 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg7 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United

8 States to the building referred to in subsection (a) shall

9 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Roxanne H. Jones

10 Post Office Building’’.

11 SEC. 2. FREEMAN HANKINS POST OFFICE BUILDING.

12 (a) DESIGNATION.—The United States Postal Serv13 ice building located at 5300 West Jefferson Street, in

14 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, shall be known and designated

15 as the ‘‘Freeman Hankins Post Office Building’’.

16 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg17 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United

18 States to the building referred to in subsection (a) shall

19 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Freeman Hankins

20 Post Office Building’’.

21 SEC. 3. MAX WEINER POST OFFICE BUILDING.

22 (a) DESIGNATION.—The United States Postal Serv23 ice building located at 2037 Chestnut Street, in Philadel24 phia, Pennsylvania, shall be known and designated as the

25 ‘‘Max Weiner Post Office Building’’.
3

•HR 100 EH

1 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg2 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United

3 States to the building referred to in subsection (a) shall

4 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Max Weiner Post Of5 fice Building’’.

Passed the House of Representatives May 24, 1999.

Attest:

Clerk.
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida 

Opinion filed January 4, 2023.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D22-2056

Lower Tribunal No. 20-17285

________________

Alfredo Rodriguez, et al.,

Petitioners,

vs.

Rohan Halsall,

Respondent.

A Case of Original Jurisdiction – Prohibition.

Davis, Giardino, Hrivnak & Okon, PLLC, and Wayne T. Hrivnak (West 

Palm Beach), for petitioners.

The McFarlane Firm, P.A., and Gregory McFarlane (Ft. Lauderdale), 

for respondent.

Before LINDSEY, HENDON, and LOBREE, JJ. 

PER CURIAM.
2

Petitioners (Defendants below), Alfredo Rodriguez & Miami Fine 

Foods, LLC, petition this Court for a writ of prohibition following the trial 

court’s denial of their motion for disqualification. A sworn motion filed below 

in support of the motion alleged the trial court made improper comments at 

a calendar call. As this Court explained in Nguyen v. Nguyen, 229 So. 3d 

407, 407 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017):

The standard of review of a trial court’s determination on a 

motion to disqualify is de novo.

The Florida Rules of Judicial Administration provide for the 

disqualification of a judge when “the party fears that he or she 

will not receive a fair trial or hearing because of specifically 

described prejudice or bias of the judge.” Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 

2.330(d)(1).[1] The legal sufficiency of a motion to disqualify 

depends on “whether the facts alleged would place a reasonably 

prudent person in fear of not receiving a fair and impartial trial.” 

Livingston v. State, 441 So. 2d 1083, 1087 (Fla. 1983); State v. 

Borrego, 105 So. 3d 616, 619 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013). The 

allegations of fact that are contained in the motion must be taken 

as true, Masten v. State, 159 So. 3d 996, 997 (Fla. 3d DCA 

2015), and “the question of disqualification focuses not on what 

the judge intended, but rather how the message is received and 

the basis of the feeling.” Great Am. Ins. Co. of N.Y. v. 2000 

Island Blvd. Condo. Ass’n, 153 So. 3d 384, 390 (Fla. 3d DCA 

2014) (citing Livingston, 441 So. 2d at 1086).

(Citations omitted).

1 The current rule is Florida Rule of General Practice and Judicial

Administration 2.330(e)(1).
3

Treating the allegations of fact contained in the motion to disqualify as 

true, as we must, we conclude that disqualification is warranted. 

Accordingly, we grant the petition. We withhold formal issuance of the writ, 

confident that the trial judge will promptly issue an order of disqualification.

We remand this cause for reassignment to a successor judge, if one has not 

already been reassigned by virtue of the annual judicial rotation of divisions, 

and for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Petition granted. Cause remanded. Writ issuance withheld.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 117 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.J.Res.117

                       One Hundred Sixth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

           Begun and held at the City of Washington on Monday,
             the twenty-fourth day of January, two thousand

                            Joint Resolution

 
 Making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2001, and 
                           for other purposes.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That Public Law 106-275, is 
further amended by striking the date specified in section 106(c) and 
inserting ``October 28, 2000''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
**Bureau of Ocean Energy Management Alaska Environmental Studies Program**  **Proposed Study for FY 201 2**  Formatting Guidance: We recommend study profiles be less than 2 pages . Please do not try to make this a detailed scope of work. If the study is selected f or further consideration, BOEM will prepare a more detailed scope of work. Please provide the following categories of information. **Region:** Alaska [Standard for all.] **Planning Area(s):** [e.g., Beaufort Sea, Chukchi Sea, North Aleutian Basin as applicable.

See Fig.1 of the Plan.] **Title:** [Fill in concise title. ] **BOEM Information Need(s) to be Addressed:**  Provide brief and conclusive reason(s) why BOEM needs the information. For example, identify how the study relates to analysis under the National Enviro nmental Policy Act and/or specific BOEM decision(s), such as formulation of a mitigation measure. Please be as specific as possible. **Period of Performance:** FY 201 2

- 20 XX **Description:** Background : Please provide 1 to 2 paragraphs on relevant issues. Exp lain what information is required and provide pertinent background. Include details about whether this study ties in with other efforts, and if so, how. Include a description of the current status of information. That is, what is the level of adequacy of existing information, does any exist, does it need to be more geographically specific? Objectives : Clearly and succinctly state the objective(s) of the study. Explain what hypothesis will be tested or what questions will be answered by this study. W e encourage the use of lists (1, 2, 3, etc.) for multiple, related objectives. Methods : Provide brief detail on what information, techniques or methods are available that could be used. Explain how the objectives of the study will be accomplished.
**D ate information is required:**  Provide dates when products would be most useful, such as “Final report is needed by December 2012.” If the product of the study is something additional to the scientific report (e.g. database, model, bibliography), explain i n this section.
D’AVION LLC.																											

200 Jet Port Road

Brandon, MS 39047

601-936-0777

davionllc.com

info@davionllc.com

12 November 2015

Mr. Janus Williams

Manager, Flight Standards Service

Unmanned Aircraft Systems Integration Office

Federal Aviation Administration

800 Independence Avenue, SW

Washington, DC 20591 

U.S. Department of Transportation

Docket Operations

West Building Ground Floor, Room w12-140 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE

Washington, DC 20590 

Dear Mr. Williams, 

We have received your FAA email request (Request for Information D'Avion LLC (FAA-2015-

3755) dated 12 November, 2015 requesting information on our “Motion Picture and Television 

Operations Manual (MOPTM).” At this time, we would like to remove the “closed-set motion 

picture and television filming and production” provision previously requested in our exemption. 

In accordance with the procedural requirements of 14 C.F.R. §11.81, D’Avion LLC provides 

the following information regarding our point of contact: 

Carl R. Davis, Member, D’Avion LLC

200 Jet Port Road

Brandon, MS 39047

601-936-0777

Please contact me directly with any questions regarding this request for exemption. 

Best regards,

Carl R. Davis

Member, D’Avion LLC
No. 55075.

#### Fleming-Joffe, Ltd., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 138384-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of reptile skins the same in all material respects as those passed upon in *Fleming-Joffe, Ltd.*v. *United States*(25 Cust. Ct. 56, C. D. 1263), the claim for free entry under paragraph 1765 was sustained.