alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-12-00030- CV

In re Sabrina O berg

ORI GINAL P ROCEEDI NG F ROM TRAVIS CO UNTY

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

P ER CURIAM

On the rec ord befor e us, we cannot conclude that rela tor is entitled to the relief
soug ht. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.7(a) , 52.8(a)

. Be cause rela tor has failed to provide this Court with

a rec ord, including a copy of any motion or order from which she seeks relief , we cannot deter

mine
if rela tor is seeking relief from a final judgme nt from the county court or att em p t i n g t o stay her eviction pending an appea l in the county court. See Tex. Prop. Code §§ 24.007, 24.0051 (West Supp. 2011). F urther, we cannot deter mine whether rela

tor has complied with any applicable interim

r e n t o r s u p e r s e d e a s b o n d r e q

u ir e me n ts

. I d

. Co n s e q

u e n tl y , w e d e ny h e r p e ti ti o n f o r w r it o f ma

n d a mu s and motion for tempora

ry relief without prejudice.

Be fore Chief J ustice Jones, J ustices Henson a nd Goodwin Filed: January

26, 2012
q

p

y 

, 

g

(CFR), Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR), Section 91.41l(b). 

Erickson Helicopters Inc. is a commercial Air Carrier (9EKA532N) authorized under 

CFR Title 14, part 119 and Part 135. We currently operate aircraft maintained under 

Part 135.411(a)(2) "CAMP", and aircraft maintained under Part 135.411(a)(1). 

Under the provisions of Part 135.411 (a)(2) Erickson Helicopters Inc. currently h as 

approved procedures within our Continued Airworthiness Maintenance Program 

(CAMP) to perform the requirements of Part 43 Appendix (E) "Altimeter System Test 

and Inspection" and Part 43 Appendix (F) " ATC Transponder Tests and Inspections" 

for all of our "1 0 or more" aircraft. 

The literal in terpretation of the rule, 9 1.413 (c)(2) implies that the holder of a CAMP 

can perform these tests and inspections, or Part 43 Appendix (F)" ATC Transponder 

Tests and Inspections" on all of its aircraft including any that are "9 or less" under 

Part 135.411(a)(1). It does not state that all aircraft owned or operated by an operator 

must be on a CAMP to comply with this rule. 

The majority of Erickson Helicopters aircraft maintained under Part 135.411(a)(1) are 

stationed remotely throughout Alaska or in support of the US Military making it 

difficult to keep these aircraft mission-ready by virtue of their location. 

Allowing Erickson Helicopters to perform these procedures in accordance with the 

aircraft manufactures requirements under our 135 Certificate would provide an equal 

or greater level of safety as provided by current regulations by using Avionics 

Technicians with extensive expertise and familiarity with the sp ecific systems 

installations of our make and models of aircraft. .This would be in the best interest of 

the public by always providing mission-ready aircraft that support the US Military. 

OFFICE FAX 

503 505 58oo I I 503 473 8540 

www.ericksonaviation.com 

ERICKSON AIR-CRANE INCORPORATED 

5550 SW Macadam Avenue II Suite 200 

Portland, Oregon 97239 II USA 
p

Exemption from (FAR), Sections 91.4 11(b) for all Erickson Helicopters Inc. aircraft 

operating under provisions of Part 135.411(a)(l) would provide an equal or higher level 

of safety as under the current rule. 

Regards, 

irector of Airworthiness Compliance 

rickson Helicopters Inc. 

3800 Three Mile Lane 

McMinnville, OR 97128 

503-434-4003 Ext 4084
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 185 (Wednesday, September 24, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 49987]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-25263]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Office of the Secretary


Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB 
Review; Comment Request

    The Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the 
Secretary publishes a list of information collections it has submitted 
to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance in 
compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 
35) and 5 CFR 1320.5. The following are those information collections 
recently submitted to OMB.
    1. Study of the Implementation of the Office of Minority Health's 
Bilingual/Bicultural Service Demonstration Program--NEW--The Office of 
Minority Health proposes to survey sites participating in its 
Bilingual/Bicultural demonstration grant program to obtain general 
information on how the program is being implemented. Type of 
Respondents: demonstration sites; Number of Respondents: 47; Burden 
Estimate per Response to Verification Survey: 4 hours; Total Burden for 
Verification Survey: 188 hours; Burden Estimate per Response to 
Telephone Interview: 1 hour; Total Burden for Telephone Interview: 47 
hours. Total Study Burden: 235 hours.
    OMB Desk Officer: Allison Eydt.
    Copies of the information collection packages listed above can be 
obtained by calling the OS Reports Clearance Officer on (202) 690-6207. 
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information 
collection should be sent directly to the OMB desk officer designated 
above at the following address: Human Resources and Housing Branch, 
Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 
10235, 725 17th Street N.W., Washington, D.C. 20503.
    Comments may also be sent to Cynthia Agens Bauer, OS Reports 
Clearance Officer, Room 503H, Humphrey Building, 200 Independence 
Avenue S.W., Washington DC, 20201. Written comments should be received 
within 30 days of this notice.

    Dated: September 12, 1997.
Dennis P. Williams,
Deputy Assistant Secretary, Budget.
[FR Doc. 97-25263 Filed 9-23-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4150-04-M
# Pathfinde r Aviatio n .XKETOPEa^TtOl'I S Aprils , 201 2 T o Who m I t Ma yConcern : Thi s lette ri s i n respons e t o cas e numbe r2012AL03000 4 filed agains t Pathfinde r Aviatio n Inc . b yth e FAA . rf/V Q ^ 5 0 ^ S^00«^ 0



### • Regardin g thTcbrnpIaTnt r ' ^ Ite m i i s accepte d as correct . Ite m I I (1 ) i s accepte d a s correct . Ite m I I [2 } i s accepte d a s correct . Ite m I I (3 ) shoul d read : afte rlandin g o n th e Hardin g Ic e Fiel d nea rSewar d Alask a th e aircraf t brok e throug h th e sno w crus t an d th e tai l roto rmad e contac t wit h th e snow . Maintenanc e wa s flow n i n t o inspec t th e aircraf t fo rserviceability . Afte r inspection , th e aircraf t wa s ru n u p wit h th e intentio n o f repositionin g th e aircraft . A t thi s poin t th e numbe r3 segmen t o f th e tai l roto rdriv e shaf t faile d a t th e bonde d adapter . 

### Item1 1 (4 ) i s accepte da s correc t Ite m I I (5 ) i s accepte d as correc t •IterifII"(6]"Both'the"FAAlDaiT'lJar"son,ou rPOI ] an d th e NTS B (Larr yLewis ] wer e notifie d immediatel y(withi n 1 hour ] regardin g thi s incident . Mitigatin g circumstance s include d th e terminatio n o f ou rDirecto ro f Maintenanc e th e wee k prio rt o th e incident . W e ha d hire d a ne w Directo ro f Maintenanc e an d wer e waitin g o n hi s arrival . 

### ItemII I (1 ) se e itemI

I (6 ] above . Ite m 11 1 (3 ] 1 believ e a warnin g lette ri n thi s cas e i s mor e appropriate . Pathfinde r Aviatio n In c ha s bee n a n exemplar ypar t 13 5 operato rwit h n o prio raccidents , incident s o rviolations . A civi l penalt yo f $350 0 fo rfiling a lat e repor t appear s t o b e a bi t hars h fo ra first tim e offense . P O Bo x37 5 Homer , Alask

a 99603 (907 ) 226-280 0 office (907 ) 226-280 1 fa x

### Pathfinder Aviation Inc . apologize s fo r th e delaye drespons e to you r previou s letter . Afte r th e procedura l orde r

wa s received , contac t

wit h th e attorney' s offic

e i n Washingto n D

C wa s attempte dseveral time s wit h no luck . Message s wer e lef t an d Mr . Ir aLeibowit

z finally returne dm

y cal l whil e 1 wa s travellin g ou t o f th e country on business . \mad e contac t wit h Mr . Leibowit

z upo n m y retur n to ge t

clarificatio n o n th e proces s an dou r

responsibility . The procedura l orde r an dth e motio n to deemallegation s admitte dar e ver y confusin g document s tha t w e neede dcounse l advic e to determin e th e appropriat e response . W e loo k forwardt o you r

response .

Mik e Fel l Pathfinder Aviation Inc .

P O Box37 5 Homer , Alask a 9960 3

(907 ) 226-280 0 offic e (907 ) 226-280 1 fa x
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 181 (Thursday, September 18, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 48996]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-25014]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

AGENCY: U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, Washington, DC 20207.

Time and Date: Thursday, September 25, 1997, 2:00 p.m.

Location: Room 410, East West Towers, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, 
Maryland.

Status: Closed to the Public.

Matter to be Considered: 

Compliance Status Report: The staff will brief the Commission on the 
status of various compliance matters.
    For a recorded message containing the latest agenda information, 
call (301) 504-0709.

CONTACT PERSON FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: Sadye E. Dunn, Office of the 
Secretary, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20207, (301) 504-0800.

    Dated: September 15, 1997.
Sadye E. Dunn,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-25014 Filed 9-16-97; 2:58 pm]
BILLING CODE 6355-01-M
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 98-2676

___________

United States of America, *

 *

Appellee, *

 * Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

 * Northern District of Iowa.

Nancy Richmond, * [UNPUBLISHED]

 *

Appellant. *

___________

 Submitted: November 25, 1998

 Filed: December 3, 1998 

___________

Before WOLLMAN, HANSEN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Nancy Richmond pleaded guilty to making false statements to the Social Security

Administration in application for payment of Social Security benefits, in violation of 42

U.S.C. § 408(a)(2). In a written plea agreement, Richmond indicated that she

understood she might be required to pay $9,879 restitution. Richmond did not object

to financial data included in her presentence report (PSR) or to the PSR’s statement that

“restitution shall be ordered” pursuant to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual
The Honorable Michael J. Melloy, Chief Judge, United States District Court for 1

the Northern District of Iowa.

-2-

§ 5E1.1 (1997). The district court sentenced Richmond to two years’ probation, and 1

ordered her to pay $9,879 restitution. Richmond appeals only the order of restitution,

arguing that the district court abused its discretion in ordering restitution without making

factual findings about her financial resources, financial needs, or earning ability.

Having reviewed the entire record and the parties& briefs, we conclude that the

district court did not plainly err in ordering restitution without making factual findings

as to Richmond&s ability to pay, as Richmond objected to neither the PSR&s information

pertaining to her ability to pay nor the restitution order at sentencing, and the parties

agreed to the potential amount of restitution in the plea agreement. See 18 U.S.C.

§ 3663(a)(3); United States v. Dugan, 150 F.3d 865, 868 (8th Cir.) (standard of review),

cert. denied, 1998 WL 747502 (U.S. Nov. 16, 1998) (No. 98-6507); United States v.

Osborn, 58 F.3d 387, 388-89 (8th Cir. 1995).

The judgment is affirmed.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
January 27, 1999


           Salem Abraham
           Abraham Trading Company
           Moody Building
           Second & Main
           Canadian, TX 79014

           Re:    Smith Barney Principal Plus Futures Fund L.P.

           Dear Salem:

           Please  liquidate  all of  your  positions  in the  above  references
           fund(s) in an orderly fashion by Friday, January 29, 1999.

           If you have any questions, I can be reached at 212- 723-54160

           Very truly yours,

           SMITH BARNEY FUTURES MANAGEMENT INC.



           Daniel A. Dantuono
           Chief Financial Officer & Director


           DAD/sr
#### GULF SHORE DREDGING CO., Inc., a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. Fred L. GADSON, a single man, Appellee.

No. 68-428.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Second District.

June 20, 1969.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
Exhibit 31.2  PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICERS CERTIFICATIONS 
PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  I,
Carrie A. Wolfe, certify that:  1.             I have reviewed this annual report
on Form 10-K of FTD, 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
officer(s) 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 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 (the registrants fourth
fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) 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
officer(s) 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 the registrants board of directors (or persons performing
the equivalent functions):  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.   Date:  September 12, 2003
  /S/ CARRIE A. WOLFEName:
  Carrie A. WolfeTitle:
  Chief Financial Officer
Case 1:05-cv-00079-MBC Document 7 Filed 03/29/06 Page 1 of 4Case 1:05-cv-00079-MBC Document 7 Filed 03/29/06 Page 2 of 4Case 1:05-cv-00079-MBC Document 7 Filed 03/29/06 Page 3 of 4Case 1:05-cv-00079-MBC Document 7 Filed 03/29/06 Page 4 of 4
EXHIBIT 21

                              Matrix Bancorp, Inc.

                         Subsidiaries of the Registrant


1.       Matrix Financial Services Corporation - Incorporated in Arizona

2.       Matrix Capital  Markets,  Inc. - Incorporated  in Colorado and formerly
         known as United Financial, Inc.

3.       Matrix Capital Bank - Organized  pursuant to a Federal savings and loan
         charter

4.       Matrix Asset Management Corporation - Incorporated in Colorado

5.       The Vintage Group, Inc. - Incorporated in Texas

6.       Vintage Delaware Holdings, Inc. - Incorporated in Delaware

7.       Sterling Trust Company - Incorporated in Texas

8.       First Matrix Investment Services Corp. - Incorporated in Texas

9.       Matrix Funding Corp. - Incorporated in Colorado

10.      MSCS Ventures, Inc. - Incorporated in Colorado

11.      Matrix Settlement & Clearance Services, L.L.C. (45%) - Organized in New
         York

12.      MSCS Financial Services, LLC - formed in Delaware

13.      Equi-Mor Holdings, Inc. - Incorporated in Nevada

14.      ABS School Services, L.L.C. - Organized in Arizona

15.      New Century Property Management Group, LLC - Organized in Arizona

16.      New Century Educational Management Services, LLC - Organized in Arizona

17.      Matrix Aviation Corporation - Incorporated in Colorado

18.      MCNP-1 Corp. - Incorporated in New Mexico

19.      Matrix Insurance Service Corporation - Incorporated in Arizona

20.      Matrix Advisory Services, L.L.C. - Organized in Delaware

21.      Matrix Bancorp Capital Trust I - Organized under Delaware law

22.      Matrix Bancorp Capital Trust II - Organized under Delaware law

23.      Matrix Bancorp Capital Trust III- Organized under Delaware law

24.      Matrix Bancorp Capital Trust IV - Organized under Delaware law
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 188 (Monday, September 29, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50909-50910]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-25711]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

ACTION: Notice.

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

    The Department of Defense has submitted to OMB for clearance, the 
following proposal for collection of information under the provisions 
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
    Title, Associated Form, and OMB Number: Description of Vessels, 
Description of Operations; ENG Forms 3931, 3932; OMB Number 0710-0009.
    Type of Request: Extension.
    Number of Respondents: 2,500.
    Responses per Respondent: 1.
    Annual Responses: 2,500.
    Average Burden per Response: 48 minutes.
    Annual Burden Hours: 2,000 hours.
    Needs and Uses: This information collection is the basic data from 
which the Army Corps of Engineers (COE) compiles and publishes the 
``Waterborne Transportation Lines of the United States'' (WTLUS), 
Volumes 1, 2 and 3. This publication provides information on the vessel 
operators and their American flag vessels operating or available for 
operation in the transportation of freight and passengers. The 
following information is included in this publication: (a) Summary of 
U.S. vessel inventory for current and previous year; (b) names of 
vessel operators with business address of each operator; (c) 
descriptive information for each vessel in the domestic fleet; and (d) 
a description of operations which includes the area of operation and 
principle commodities carried. The data is used extensively by the COE 
as a quality control mechanism by the Enforcement Office of the 
Waterborne Commerce Statistics Center. The data is also used by the 
U.S. Coast Guard and other Federal and State agencies involved in 
transportation.
    Affected Public: Business or Other For-Profit.
    Frequency: Annually.
    Respondent's Obligation: Mandatory.
    OMB Desk Officer: Mr. Jim Laity.
    Written comments and recommendations on the proposed

[[Page 50910]]

information collection should be sent to Mr. Laity at the Office of 
Management and Budget, Desk Officer for U.S. Army COE, Room 10202, New 
Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503.
    DOD Clearance Officer: Mr. Robert Cushing.
    Written requests for copies of the information collection proposal 
should be sent to Mr. Cushing, WHS/DIOR, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, 
Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302.

    Dated: September 22, 1997.
Patricia L. Toppings,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 97-25711 Filed 9-26-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5000-04-M
#### James R. THOMPSON, as Judge of the County Court of Lee County, Florida, Appellant, v. STATE ex rel. George MITCHELL, Appellee.

No. 77-150.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Jan. 4, 1978.

Joseph P. D’Alessandro, State’s Atty., Louis S. St. Laurent, Chief Asst. State’s Atty., and James A. Pilón and Darryl C. Casanueva, Asst. State’s Attys., Fort Myers, for appellant.

Wilbur C. Smith, III of Smith & Carta, Fort Myers, for appellee.

OTT, Judge.

In this appeal from the granting of a suggestion for writ of prohibition we are asked to decide whether relator’s express and unconditional waiver of his speedy trial rights in a stipulation for continuance constituted a waiver of his speedy trial rights under Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.191. We hold that it does and reverse.

Defendant/relator twice stipulated to a continuance of his trial,1 trial being set for June 18, 1976 by the second stipulation. Both stipulations contained the statement: “The Defendant herein waives speedy trial.” Thereafter, relator’s trial was continued twice more through no fault of rela-tors — one continuance was at the request of the state; the other was on the court’s own motion due to an overcrowded docket — with trial ultimately reset for October 29, 1976. On September 23, 1976, relator filed a motion for discharge. Upon denial of this motion, relator applied to the circuit court for a writ of prohibition, which was granted.

Relator contends that *Negron v. State,*306 So.2d 104 (Fla.1974), requires affirmance of this case. However, the defendant in *Negron*had not specifically waived her speedy trial rights under the rule. *Coppola v. State,*337 So.2d 779 (Fla.1976).

Here a specific and unconditional waiver of speedy trial was made in writing. We think this case falls within the rationale of *State ex rel. Butler v. Cullen,*253 So.2d 861 (Fla.1971). That case held that when the time limitations set forth in the speedy *665trial rule (now Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.191) are waived by a defendant’s request for a continuance, the accused need only be tried within a *reasonable*time. The accused always, of course, retains his constitutional right to a speedy trial. Furthermore, an accused may at any time following completion of his preparation for trial file a demand for speedy trial pursuant to Fla.R. Crim.P. 3.191(a)(2). He must then be brought to trial within 60 days.

This opinion is limited to situations where the accused has filed a specific and unconditional waiver of his right to speedy trial. We do not now pass on the situation where the accused files a motion for continuance without a specific waiver of his speedy trial rights.

In accordance with this opinion, the writ of prohibition is vacated and the cause remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with the views expressed herein.

GRIMES, Acting C. J., and SCHEB, J., concur.

1

. He was charged with a misdemeanor and therefore fell under the jurisdiction of the county court.
## In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 22

- 00150

- CR

D EVUNTRA C LAY

, Appellant

V

.

T HE S TATE OF T EXAS §

§

§

§

§ On A ppeal from Criminal District Court

No. 1

of Tarrant County ( 1685367D )

Se ptember 7 , 2023

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Walker

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there

was no error in the tria l cour t’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of the trial

court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By /s/ Br ian Walker

Justice Brian Walker