alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Gulfstream Aerospace LP ¤ PO Box 1036 ¤ Airport City 70100 ¤ ISRAEL 

Tel: +972-3-935-6624 ¤ Fax: +972-3-935-6750 

 

FAA/12137/CG 

August 13 , 2012 

GALP Petition for a time-limited Exemption – 

CFR Part 25.981(a)(3) Amdt. 25-102 – 

Additional Information / request for time to demonstrate full compliance 

Gulfstream Aerospace LP (GALP) has petitioned FAA for a time-limited (2 year) exemption from 14 

CFR Part 25.981(a)(3) as amended by Amendment 25-102 as it applies to the Gulfstream G280 

airplane (docket FAA-2012-0403). As stated in GALP’s petition (memo “GEN/12069/BM” of April 5, 

2012 in docket FAA-2012-0403) GALP finds that it remains impractical to demonstrate full 

compliance with §25.981(a)(3) at amdt. 25-102 in a timely manner in support of Type Certification. 

Therefore, to support the intended conclusion of the G280 TC effort as explained within that 

preceding letter, GALP respectfully requests FAA to grant that GALP may demonstrate compliance 

within the requested two-year period of the requested exemption. This would allow a timely 

conclusion to the TC effort as outlined in our original petition. 

Reasons for Additional Information: 

The additional time needed (two years, concurrent with the exemption requested under docket FAA2012-0403) to fully demonstrate compliance to this rule involves the same fuel system and wiring 

features identified in GALP’s original petition. GALP has found that more time is required to provide 

the substantiating details of compliance including certain requirements for latent + one failure 

protection and similar aspects of the rule. 

Grounds, Public Interest and Precedent: 

GALP’s reasons and basis, supporting information, acceptable level of safety and the public interest / 

benefit for this exemption remain the same as stated in GALP memo GEN/12069/BM as cited above 

and within the docket FAA-2012-0403 record. GALP also believes this request lies conservatively 

within that of the precedents previously cited, exemptions 10180 and 8761C, in terms of purpose, 

acceptable levels of safety and time permitted for the compliance task. 

In Conclusion: 

GALP respectfully appreciates FAA’s early consideration of this request as it relates to our original 

petition for exemption to §25.981(a)(3) at amdt. 25-102 as requested and in support of final Type 

Certification and delivery to our customers as scheduled. 

For further questions please contact : 

Charly Gaber 

GALP PE 

charly.gaber@gulfstream.com
Order filed February 7, 2019

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 18

- 00792

- CV

____________ ABANTE & JOPIO LLC A ND 5110 WASHINGTON L LC , Appellants

V.
UR PROPERTIES I, L.P ., Appellee

On Appeal from the Co Civil Ct at Law No 2

Ha rris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1104927



### O R D E R
Appellant filed a brief which this court returned because it did not comply with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.4(j)(4). See Tex. R. App. P. 9.4(j)(4), (k). On January 23, 2019, this court s ent notice to appellant that its brief did not comply and requested that it file a compliant brief within one business day. As of this date, appellant has not filed a compliant brief or other response.Unless appellant files a compliant brief with this co urt on or before

February 1 4 , 2019 , the court will dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b).

PER CURIAM
#### John Elliot PANZAVECCHIA, Petitioner, v. The STATE of Florida, County of Dade, Respondent.

No. 69-132.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

April 16, 1969.

Rehearing Denied May 19, 1969.

PER CURIAM.

Certiorari denied.
#### Lorene Elizabeth Self BURNETT, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Kenneth Lee BURNETT, Defendant and Appellee.

No. 6196.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.

Aug. 30, 1977.

See also, 349 So.2d 488.

James B. O’Neill, Zwolle, for defendant and appellant.

Lowther & Boone by Robert C. Lowther, Jr., Many, for plaintiff and appellee.

Before CULPEPPER, GUIDRY and FORET, JJ.

CULPEPPER, Judge.

This case was consolidated on appeal with *Kenneth Lee Burnett v. Lorene Elizabeth Burnett,*349 So.2d 488, in which a separate judgment is being rendered by us this date. In the present suit, the plaintiff-wife seeks to annul the prior judgment of separation from bed and board rendered against her as defendant in the companion suit. *491She contends (1) that there is no such cause of action as “constructive abandonment”, which was the alleged basis of the separation judgment and (2) that the judgment should be annulled for fraud and ill practices, because the allegations in the husband’s petition for separation are false, and he knew they were false at the time he filed the petition. From a judgment dismissing the wife’s suit to annul the prior judgment of separation, the wife appealed.

As to the wife’s argument that the judgment of separation should be annulled because there is no such cause of action as “constructive abandonment”, we conclude in our decision in the companion case that such a cause of action has been recognized in at least three decisions of courts of appeal of this state. Furthermore, we conclude that even if there is no such cause of action, the factual allegations of the husband’s petition for separation from bed and board are sufficient to allege a cause of action based on cruelty.

As to the wife’s argument that the judgment of separation should be annulled because of fraud and ill practices, LSA-C.C.P. Article 2004, we note that in the husband’s suit for separation the wife was personally served, and that she filed no answer or other pleadings urging that the allegations of the husband’s petition for separation were false, nor did she urge any other defense. It is apparent that at the time the wife was served with her husband’s petition for separation, she had full knowledge of all of the facts which she now alleges as fraud and ill practices.

In the recent case of *Lyons v. Fontenot,*344 So.2d 1068 (3rd Cir. 1977), we held in a very similar suit for nullity of a judgment of divorce that, in the absence of a valid and sufficient reason for defendant’s failure to defend a suit in which a default judgment has been taken, such a defendant cannot maintain an action for nullity of the default judgment based on alleged defenses of fraud or ill practices, which could and should have been pleaded in the original suit. This rule is clearly applicable in the present case.

For the reasons assigned, the judgment appealed is affirmed. All costs of this appeal are assessed against the plaintiff-appellant.

AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                           7,718
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,242
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                        596
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                10,685
<PP&E>                                             354
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  12,409
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,669
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             4
<OTHER-SE>                                       8,711
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    12,409
<SALES>                                         12,872
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                12,872
<CGS>                                            3,951
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    3,951
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                10,346
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,027)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      (72)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (955)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.23)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 23 (Tuesday, February 4, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 5246]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-2618]


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

DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR

National Park Service


Wolf Trap Farm Park Draft General Management Plan/Development 
Concept Plan/Environmental Impact Statement, Vienna, VA

AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior.

ACTION: Release of draft general management plan/development concept 
plan/environmental impact statement for public review, and announcement 
of public meetings.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to Council on Environmental Quality regulations and 
National Park Service policy, the National Park Service (NPS) announces 
release for public review the Draft General Management Plan/Development 
Concept Plan/Environmental Impact Statement for Wolf Trap Farm Park. 
Public meetings will be held during the review period.
    Wolf Trap Farm Park, a unit of the National Park Service and home 
to the Filene Center, is the only unit of the National Park Service 
dedicated to the performing arts. It is managed as a public/private 
partnership between the National Park Service and the Wolf Trap 
Foundation for the Performing Arts, a private not-for-profit 
corporation. The Draft General Management Plan proposes basic 
philosophy and management concepts for the park and guidelines for park 
operations.
    Public meetings to review the plan and receive comments will be led 
by officials of the National Park Service and representatives from the 
Wolf Trap Foundation at the following times: February 13, 1997, at 2:00 
PM and 7:00 PM. Both meetings will be held at Wolf Trap Farm Park, 1551 
Trap Road, Vienna, Virginia.
    For further information please contact Richard Wilt, Director, Wolf 
Trap Farm Park at (703) 255-1808. Requests for copies of the draft plan 
or written comments may be addressed to Mr. Wilt at Wolf Trap Farm 
Park, 1551 Trap Road, Vienna, VA 22182. Comments must be received by 
March 3, 1997, to be addressed by the Final General Management Plan/
Development Concept Plan/Environmental Impact Statement.

    Dated: January 27, 1997.
Terry R. Carlstrom,
Acting Field Director, National Capital Area.
[FR Doc. 97-2618 Filed 2-3-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-70-M
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6728

EDWARD LEE BRAGG,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

J. B. METZGER, III; VIRGINIA PAROLE BOARD,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Chief District

Judge. (CA-95-74-R)

Submitted: October 17, 1996 Decided: October 24, 1996

Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Edward Lee Bragg, Appellant Pro Se. Mary Elizabeth Shea, OFFICE OF

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying

relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1994), amended

by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L.

No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214. We have reviewed the record and the

district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly,

we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on

the reasoning of the district court. Bragg v. Metzger, No. CA-95-

74-R (W.D. Va. Mar. 29, 1996). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in

the materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

DISMISSED
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 185 (Wednesday, September 24, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49963-49964]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-25289]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. RP97-172-007]


ANR Storage Company; Notice of Compliance Filing

September 18, 1997.
    Take notice that on September 15, 1997, ANR Storage Company (ANR 
Storage) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Original 
Volume No. 1, the tariff sheets listed on Appendix A to the filing, to 
be effective November 1, 1997.

[[Page 49964]]

    ANR Storage states that the tariff sheets listed on Appendix A are 
being filed in compliance with the Commission's Order issued on June 
27, 1997 in the above captioned docket. The filing incorporates 
modifications to the GISB standards as proposed by Order 587-C, 
effective November 1, 1997.
    ANR states that copies of the filing were served upon the company's 
Jurisdictional customers.
    Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., 
Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the 
Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed in 
accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceeding. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public 
Reference Room.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-25289 Filed 9-23-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
EXHIBIT 10.43


                      IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
                          EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
                              LITTLE ROCK DIVISION

IN RE:     CAPITOL DEVELOPMENT OF ARKANSAS, INC.                   NO. 0043142M
           DEBTOR-IN-POSSESSION                                     (CHAPTER 11)


                 ORDER PERMITTING WITHDRAWAL OF DISMISSAL MOTION

         On this day  comes on for  hearing  the  Motion to  Dismiss,  or in the
Alternative,  Motion For the  Appointment of a Trustee filed on December 7, 2000
(the "Motion"),  by Nathaniel S. Shapo,  the Director of Insurance for the State
of Illinois,  in his Capacity as the Statutory and Court Affirmed  Liquidator of
Resure,  Inc., in Liquidation  (the  "Liquidator").  The Debtor  appeared by and
through its counsel,  Geoffrey B. Treece. The Liquidator appeared by and through
its counsel, Gregory M. Hopkins. Upon the pleadings,  consent of the parties and
other  matters of proof and law,  the Court  finds and orders that the Motion is
withdrawn  by  Liquidator  effective  upon entry of an Order  (the "Cook  County
Order") of the  Circuit  Court of Cook  County  Illinois in Case No. 97 CH 01974
approving the agreements of the Liquidator and the Debtor set forth in the Order
Resolving  Motion for Relief  from Stay  entered by this Court of even date with
this Order.

         IT IS SO ORDERED.
                                                  /s/ James Mixon
                                                  ----------------------------
                                                      HONORABLE JAMES G. MIXON
                                                      U. S. BANKRUPTCY JUDGE

                                               DATE: 12/20/01
                                                     -------------------------



ORDER/PAGE 1

<PAGE>



APPROVED AND ENTRY REQUESTED:

ATTORNEYS FOR DEBTOR:
Quattlebaum, Grooms, Tull
   & Burrow PLLC
111 Center Street,
Suite 1900
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201

By: /s/  Geoffrey B. Treece
    -----------------------
         Geoffrey B. Treece
         AR Bar No. 84-146

ATTORNEYS FOR LIQUIDATOR:
Hopkins & Allison
1000 West Second Street
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201

By: /s/  Gregory M. Hopkins
    -----------------------
         Gregory M. Hopkins
         AR Bar No. 81-093

cc.      Jim Hollis
         U. S. Trustee's Office
         500 South Broadway
         Suite 201
         Little Rock, Arkansas 72201

         G. Robert Hardin
         Hardin & Grace, P. A.
         410 West Third Street
         Suite 200
         Little Rock, Arkansas 72201\

         Ronald A. Hope
         Howell, Trice & Hope, P. A.
         211 Spring Street
         Little Rock, Arkansas 72201

         John R. Peel
         Peel & Simmons
         120 South Glenwood Avenue
         Russellville, Arkansas 72811

ORDER/PAGE 2
------------

<PAGE>


         Fredrick S. Wetzel
         1500 Riverfront Drive
         Suite 104
         Little Rock, Arkansas 72202







ORDER/PAGE 3
--------------
EXHIBIT
32.1





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 NeoGenomics, Inc. (the “Company”) on
Form 10-Q for the three months ended June 30, 2010 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 certify
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 operations of the Company.





Date:
      August 16, 2010
              /s/Douglas M.
      VanOortDouglas
      M. VanOortChairman
      and Chief ExecutiveOfficerDate:
      August 16, 2010
              /s/George
      CardozaGeorge
      CardozaChief
      Financial OfficerDate:
      August 16, 2010
              /s/Jerome J.
      DvonchJerome
      J. DvonchDirector
      of Finance and Principal AccountingOfficer





The
foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be
incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or
after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such
filing. A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or
other document authenticating, 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 the Company and
will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 190 (Wednesday, October 1, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 51490]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-26209]


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

FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

September 26, 1997.
PREVIOUSLY ANNOUNCED TIME AND DATE: 10:00 a.m., Thursday, September 25, 
1997.

PLACE: Room 6005, 6th Floor, 1730 K Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.

STATUS: Open.

CHANGES IN THE MEETING: The Commission postponed until October 3, 1997, 
consideration and action on the following:

    1. Whether to propose revisions to Commission Procedural Rules 5, 
9, 10, 45(f), 70, and 75.

TIME AND DATE: 10:00 a.m., Friday, October 3, 1997 (Previously 
scheduled for September 25, 1997).

PLACE: Room 6005, 6th Floor, 1730 K Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.

STATUS: Open.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: The Commission will consider and act upon the 
following:

    1. Whether to propose revisions to Commission Procedural Rules 5, 
9, 10, 45(f), 70, and 75.

TIME AND DATE: 10:00 a.m., Friday, October 17, 1997.

PLACE: Room 6005, 6th Floor, 1730 K Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.

STATUS: Open.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: The Commission will hear oral argument on the 
following:

    1. Rock of Ages Corp. v. Secretary of Labor, Docket No. YORK 94-76, 
etc. (Issues include whether the judge correctly determined that the 
operator violated four regulations relating to the use and handling of 
explosives and that the violations were due to the operator's 
unwarrantable failure; correctly assessed the penalty for the 
violations; and failed to be impartial in his decision and conduct of 
the hearing).

TIME AND DATE: 2:00 p.m. Friday, October 17, 1997.

PLACE: Room 6005, 6th Floor, 1730 K Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.

STATUS: Closed [Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. Sec. 552b(c)(10)].

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: It was determined by a unanimous vote of the 
Commissioners that the Commission consider and act upon the following 
in closed session.

    1. Rock of Ages Corp. v. Secretary of Labor, Docket No. YORK 94-76, 
etc. (See oral argument listing, supra, for issues).

    Any person attending oral argument or an open meeting who requires 
special accessibility features and/or auxiliary aids, such as sign 
language interpreters, must inform the Commission in advance of those 
needs. Subject to 29 C.F.R. Sec. 2706.150(a)(3) and Sec. 2706.160(d).

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFO: Jean Ellen (202) 653-5629/(202) 708-9300 
for TDD Relay/1-800-877-8339 for toll free.
Jean H. Ellen,
Chief Docket Clerk.
[FR Doc. 97-26209 Filed 9-29-97; 3:53 pm]
BILLING CODE 6735-01-M