alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
SERVED APRIL 19, 2012 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1?ARTMENT OF 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS ; il\NSF'ORTATION 

In The Matter Of: 

QUENTON T. BROWN 

Respondent 

WASHINGTON, DC 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. FAA-2011-1009 

Civil Penalty Proceeding 

ORDER SETTING TELEPHONE CONFERENCE 

,,..·,i·· .. u, .. 1. ,.,F'E011Tl0' 'S' · \ .. 1\t: U-'~nr, .. N .. 

lOll !tf P 2:38 

On February 2, 2012 an Order Granting Motion to Deem Allegations Admitted in Granting Other Relief Was Filed. 

On February 29, 2012 the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Filed a Notice of Proposed Motion to Resolve the Case. On March 1, 2012 the FAA Filed a Motion for Default 

Judgment. 

On March 23, 2012 a Telephone Conference call was held, after telephone notice was 

provided to all parties. At this conference, the FAA appeared and participated, but the Respondent failed to appear. There was no explanation for the Respondent's absence. · 

ment. 

On April9, 2012 the FAA filed the Complainant's Amended Motion for Default JudgHaving reviewed the pleadings and motions, and all relevant caselaw, statutes, regulations, rules, and authority, and being fully advised; 

It Is Hereby Ordered: 

Pursuant to 14 C.P.R. §13.205(a)(1) and (6), theparties shall appear by telephone on 

Wednesday, May 3, 2012 at I O:OOam Eastern time for a Telephone Conference. The Office of 

Hearings will initiate the Conference by telephone call, contacting each party at the party's telephone number of record. A party may provide an alternate number by notifying the Office of 

Hearings (202-366-2132) at least 24 hours prior to the Conference. 

Attachment: Service List 

Page 1 ofl 
Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

SERVICE LIST 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC--430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1 0001 

Quenton T. Brown, Respondent 

622 W. Miller Street 

Orlando FL 32805-4502 

TEL: 321-594-8501 

Quenton T. Brown, Respondent 

2440 Woodwind Trail 

Melbourne FL 32953 

ONE COPY 

Mark G. Camacho, Complainant's Counsel 

Office of the Regional Counsel 

Central Region, ACE-7 

Federal Aviation Administration 

901 Locust, Room 506 

Kansas City MO 64106-2641 

TEL: 816-329-3765 

FAX: 816-329-3771 

The Honorable J.E. Sullivan, Administrative Law Judge 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

J 200 New Jersey A venue, S.E. 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-2132 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

FDMS NO. FAA-2011-1009 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., WilburWright Building-Suite 2W1000, Washington~ 

DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. 

-2-
# ERA1 Summary

# ERA1 States Splits

# ERA1 Local Splits
Home Help Resources Feedback and Ques t



## Home About Us Resources Help Connect With

Feedback and Questions



## Partner Sites 

# Participate Tod a 

# Your comment was submitted successfully! Thank you for submitting a comme nt on the following Other: The Boeing Company - Exemption/Rulemaking 

### Agency: FAA Document ID: FAA-2004-19374-0006 

## Your Comment Tracking Number: 8110c4f2
Note this tracking number to find your comment at a later date. 

## Y our attached files: 9R-TE-BBXA-BRB-12-0243_Exempt 8827B_Renew.pdf Successfully uploaded


## When will my comment appear online? A fter submitting your comment, you will not be able to view y our comment until the appropriate agency reviews and publishes it o n Regulations.gov. Gi certain regulations may have thousands of comments, processing may take several weeks before it is viewed online. To obtain fur ther information, ple a follow-up with the agency contact listed in the document solicit ing your input. To view this document click the link above. 

## How do I find my comm ent in the future? The best way to find your comment in the future is to enter y our Comment Tracking Number in the search field on the homepage. Y ou can also search keyword or submitter name.

Search A dvanced Search Browse By Category Browse By Topics Learn eRulemaking Program Newsroom A gencies A wards & Recognition Enhancements & Fixes Site Data Regulatory Agenda A gency Reports Required by Statute Executive Order 12866 Executive Order 13563 Developers Beta How to use Regulations.gov FAQs Glossary Privacy Notice User Notice A ccessibility Statement Exchange Federal Register Reginfo Thomas USA.gov E-Gov Opengov 

## Pa g e 1 of 1 Your comment was submitted successfull y !

9/7/2012 http ://www.re g ulations. g ov /
#### Clyde BRADBERRY, Petitioner, v. CRAWLER TRACTOR COMPANY et al., Respondents.

No. 40523.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Feb. 4, 1971.

Certiorari denied.

ROBERTS, C. J., and CARLTON, ADKINS, BOYD and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
Rev 0 (9/08) 

## Com **ments i**  **n Response to “**  **Final r**  **ule; r**  **equest for c**  **om ments**  **”**
**Docket: FAA**  **- 20**  **11 -**  **1162 Directorate Identifier**  **2011 -**  **NM -**  **186 -** **AD** Comments have been received in response to : **“ Final rule; requ**  **est for comments,”** Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket and Directorate Identifier entered above. (Project engineer: Please review any comments to determine if additional action is warranted. Once you have made your determination, please fill in the com menter(s) name(s) and check the appropriate response below. Include additional information following the appropriate response, if necessary. Then **include your name and**  **the date**  in the spaces provided, and return it to the AD directorate focal. The FAA has reviewed comment(s) related to the above FAA Docket that we re ceived from: The Boeing Company **(Please check on**  **e**

**)** These comments **have not** been found to contain any information to warrant reconsideration or change of this AD. These comments **have** been found to contain information that warrants consideration of additional regulatory

action. 

### (SEE Airworthiness Directives Manual **FAA -**  **IR -**  **M -**  **8040.1 FOR ADDITIONAL ACTION.)**

______Way

ne Lockett

_____ January 3, 2012

__ Name: Date:

(This form is part of the official docket file for this AD action.)
* After an examination of the br

iefs and the reco rd, we ha ve conclu ded that oral argument is unnecessary. Thus, the appeal is submitted on the briefs and the record

. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# United States Cou rt of Appeals

For the S eventh Cir cuit Chicago, Illin ois 60604 Submitted July 15, 2005 * Decided July 18, 2005 Before Hon. JOHN L. COFFEY , Circuit Ju dge Hon. DA

NIEL A. MA

NION, Circuit Ju dge Hon. MICHAEL

S. KANNE , Circuit Ju dge No. 04-2709 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee ,

v. DENNIS C. EICHELBERGER , Defendant-Appellant

. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Western Division No. 03 CR 50048 Philip G. Reinhard, Judge. O R D E R Dennis Eichelberger used the internet to trade images of minors—including prepubescent children—engaged in sexually explicit conduct. He was indicted for posses sing 242 dep ictions of child po rnography, see 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B), and for tran sporting

the images in interst ate commerce by comp uter, see id. § 2252A(a)( 1). He p leaded guilty to the tr ansport ation count after e xecuting a UNPUBLI SHED ORDER Not to be c ited per

Circuit Rule 53No. 04-2709 Page 2

written plea agreement that waived his rights to appeal his conviction or sentence in exchange

for co ncession s by the go vernment. Now Eichelbe rger argu es that th e distric t court erred by sentenc ing him under t he forme rly mandato ry guidelin es regime, see United States v. Booker , 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), and contends that a limited remand under United Stat es v. Paladino , 401 F.3d 471 (7th Cir. 2005) is warranted. We cannot reach that issue, however, because he waived his rights to appeal. Nothing in his plea agreement providesan “escap e hatch” in the event

the guide lines were

declared

illegal, and, as we recen tly held, Booker does not invalidate the parties’ bargain where there is no such exp ress p rovision. United States v. Bownes , 405 F.3d 634, 636–37 (7th Cir. 2005). Our opinion in United States v. Loutos , 383 F.3d 615 (7th Cir. 2004), which does not discus s the ef

fect of the appe al waiver in th at case, c annot be r ead as inconsistent with Bownes . Theref ore, thisappeal is DISMISSED.
* Pursuant to 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit



## FILED

November 26, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-40571

Summary Calendar

DIONEL DE LA CRUZ,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

AVANCE,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

(M-02-MC-54)

Before BARKSDALE, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Dionel de la Cruz appeals the district court’s 11 April 2003

order denying him leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) and

instructing him on the procedures for complying with the court’s

prior sanct ion order. “[A]n order denying an application to

proceed in forma pauperis i s appealable as a final decision”.

Caston v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., Hattiesburg, Miss.

, 556 F.2d 1305,

1307 (5th Cir. 1977).2

De la Cruz’s sole contention on appeal is that the district

court erred when it denied his IFP applic ation. De la Cruz does

not address any other aspect of the court’s order. Accordingly,

any assertions pertaining to the court’s instruction regarding the

p rior sanction are waived. S ee Yohey v. Collins

, 985 F.2d 222,

224-25 (5th Cir. 1993).

The record is unclear whether the order was a denial of de la

Cruz’s motion to proceed IFP in district court or a denial of his

motion to proceed IFP on appeal. To the extent that the order can

be construed as a denial of leave to proceed IFP in district court,

the appeal is without merit. In the light of the fact that de la

Cruz failed to appear at the hearing addressing his IFP request, he

cannot show that the district court abused its discretion by

denying IFP. S ee Flowers v. Turbine Support Division

, 507 F.2d

1242, 1244 (5th Cir. 1975). (To the extent that the order can be

construed as a denial of the motion to proceed IFP on appeal, the

appeal is moot. S ee Rocky v. King

, 900 F.2d 864, 866-67 (5th Cir.

1990). The district court ultimately granted de la Cruz leave to

proceed IFP on appeal.)

AFFIRMED
Transaction Summary

The U.S. Department of the Treasury agreed to make a loan totaling $1,999,100 to Semahtronix,

LLC (the Company), a business critical to maintaining national security with approximately 172

U.S. employees in March 2020.

Treasury made the loan pursuant to section 4003(b)(3) of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and 

Economic Security (CARES) Act. The loan is secured by all the assets of the Company. It has 

an annual interest rate equal to LIBOR plus 3.5% and matures on November 13, 2025. The 

Company may draw the loan proceeds in a single draw through November 30, 2020. The loan 

proceeds will be used to provide liquidity to continue the Company’s operations. The transaction 

agreement includes covenants by the Company to comply with certain restrictions on employee 

compensation, stock repurchases, dividends, and reductions in employment levels, as required by 

the CARES Act. The loan constitutes senior indebtedness of the Company, and Treasury will 

receive 3% payment-in-kind annual interest on the loan in accordance with section 4003(d) of the 

CARES Act.
Exhibit 15.1




To Northeast Utilities:


We are aware that Northeast Utilities has incorporated by reference in its
Registrant Statements No. 33-34622; No. 33-40156;  No. 33-44814; No. 33-63023;
No. 333-55142; No. 333-52413; and No. 333-52415; its Form 10-Q for the quarter
ended March 31, 2001, which includes our report dated May 10, 2001, covering
the unaudited interim financial information contained therein and our report
dated January 22, 2002, covering the audited financial statements for the year
ended December 31, 2001.  Pursuant to Regulation C of the Securities Act of
1933, that report is not considered a part of the registration statement
prepared or certified by our firm or a report prepared or certified by our
firm within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of the Act.



                                        /s/ Arthur Andersen LLP
                                            Arthur Andersen LLP



Hartford, Connecticut
May 13, 2002
1

Vapor Pressure Measurements & Method for

Z-1,1,1,4,4,4-hexafluoro-2-butene (CAS# 692-49-9)

T (C) Vapor Pressure (torr)

-9.915 113.5

-0.053 186.5

9.896 295.2

20.01 453.3

19.876 451.3

30.131 673.7

40.12 966.4

50.17 1352.8

60.137 1844.2

70.163 2466.9

85.164 3684.8

100.302 5316.1

115.348 7452.0

125.971 9306.4

Static Vapor Pressure Measurements

Static vapor pressure measurements are routinely carried out using a standard method 

wherein the equilibrium vapor pressures are measured at controlled temperatures .1

 

Figure 1 is the diagram for the apparatus used to make these vapor-liquid equilibria 

measurements.2 

 

Approximately 20g of studied material was drawn into an evacuated 35 cm3 stainless 

steel equilibrium cell which was immersed in liquid nitrogen during the transfer. Material 

in the equilibrium cell was degassed by repeated freeze-pump-thaw cycles using liquid 

nitrogen to freeze the material. The equilibrium cell containing degassed material was 

then immersed in a constant-temperature bath, and the temperature of the bath and the 

vapor pressure were measured. The pressure was measured using Paroscientific pressure 

transducers, with 0.01% accuracy, Model 740-100A and 740-1K. Two temperature baths 

were used in these experiments: a Lauda RK20 bath with a stability of 0.01°K was used 

for temperatures below 293°K and a Neslab RTE-110 bath with a stability of 0.01°K was 

used for temperatures between 293°K and 343°K. Vapor pressures were measured 

directly using Paroscientific pressure transducer at temperatures below ambient. Vapor 

pressures were measured indirectly at temperatures above ambient using a Ruska hightemperature differential pressure null detector, Model 2439-702, with a control box, 

Model 2416-711. The null detector and parts between the detector and the equilibrium 

cell were heated to at least 400 K to avoid condensation. 
2

References

1. Kao, C.P. C.; Miller, R. N. J. Chem. Eng. Data 2000, 45, 295. 

2. Kao, C.-P. C.; Paulaitis, M. E.; Yokzeki, A. Fluid Phase Equilibria 1997, 127, 

191.
RACT SIP Revision

NH DES

Appendix D 

### Public Notice for SIP RevisionRACT SIP Revision Page D-2

NH DES January_2008 STATE OF NEW

HAMPSHIRE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES

AIR RESOURCES DIVISION CONCORD, NH NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING In accordance with N

.H. Administrative Rule Env-A 204.01(b) and Env-C 205.03(b), notice is hereby given that the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services, Air Resources Division (the Department) will hold a public hearing on a proposed revision to the state implementation plan (SIP) to certify reasonably available control technology (RACT) requirements under the 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) on October 20, 2006 at 10:00 a.m . The public hearing will be held in Room111, on the 1st floor of the offices of the Department of Environmental Services, 29 Hazen Drive, Concord, NH . At 10:00a.m

. on October 20, 2006, the Department will receive testimony fromthe public concerning the proposed revision to the SIP to certify RACT requirements under the 8- hour ozone NAAQS. The proposed revision is required under the provisions of the federal Clean Air Act (CAA) Sections 172(c)(1), 182(b)(2), and 184(b)(1)(B), and 40 CFR51 .912. RACT requirements are applicable to certain sources of volatile organic compound and nitrogen oxide statewide. The proposed SIP revision certifies that the current 1-hour ozone RACT requirements are determined to meet RACT requirements for the 8-hour ozone standard. Testimony may be presented orally and/or in writing at the public hearing. The Department will receive written comments on the proposed revisions until 4:00 p.m . on October 27, 2006. Please submit written comments to Elizabeth R . Nixon, Air Resources Division, NH Department of Environmental Services, P.O. Box 95, Concord, NH 03302-0095, (603) 271- 1370, Fax (603) 271-1381 or enixon _,des.state.nh.us. A copy of the proposed revision to the SIP is available for inspection at the offices of the Department at the address listed above from 8:00 a.m . to 4:00 p.m

., Monday through Friday.

Robert R

. Scott Director Air Resources Division NH Department of Environmental Services Dated: September 13, 2006
No. 00-7377.

#### Hawks *v.*United States.

C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
U.S. Department of the Treasury

Capital Projects Fund 

Application Deadline Extended for Tribal Governments 

May 23, 2022 

The U.S. Department of the Treasury is extending the deadline for Tribal governments to initiate

and submit their completed Capital Projects Fund (CPF) application to August 15, 2022, at 11:59 

p.m. Eastern Time (ET). CPF applications must be submitted on the Treasury web-based portal.

Please follow the instructions located on the CPF Tribal Governments webpage to access the

portal. Treasury has allocated Tribal governments and the State of Hawaii (for Native Hawaiian 

programs) approximately $167,504 each under the CPF.

Treasury seeks to support all Tribal governments that are interested in participating in the CPF. 

Tribal governments may submit questions to capitalprojectsfund@treasury.gov.
# L_2005234EN.01000801.xml

| 10.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 234/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 234/8

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1476/2005

of 9 September 2005

on the issue of import licences for high-quality fresh, chilled or frozen beef and veal

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1254/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in beef and veal (1),

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 936/97 of 27 May 1997 opening and providing for the administration of tariff quotas for high-quality fresh, chilled and frozen beef and for frozen buffalo meat (2),

Whereas:

| (1) | Regulation (EC) No 936/97 provides in Articles 4 and 5 the conditions for applications and for the issue of import licences for meat referred to in Article 2(f). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Regulation (EC) No 936/97 provides in Articles 4 and 5 the conditions for applications and for the issue of import licences for meat referred to in Article 2(f).

| (2) | Article 2(f) of Regulation (EC) No 936/97 fixes the amount of high-quality fresh, chilled or frozen beef and veal meeting the definition laid down therein which may be imported on special terms for the period 1 July 2005 to 30 June 2006 at 11 500 t. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Article 2(f) of Regulation (EC) No 936/97 fixes the amount of high-quality fresh, chilled or frozen beef and veal meeting the definition laid down therein which may be imported on special terms for the period 1 July 2005 to 30 June 2006 at 11 500 t.

| (3) | It should be recalled that licences issued pursuant to this Regulation will, throughout the period of validity, be open for use only in so far as provisions on health protection in force permit, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

It should be recalled that licences issued pursuant to this Regulation will, throughout the period of validity, be open for use only in so far as provisions on health protection in force permit,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

1.   All applications for import licences from 1 to 5 September 2005 for high-quality fresh, chilled or frozen beef and veal as referred to in Article 2(f) of Regulation (EC) No 936/97 shall be granted in full.

2.   Applications for licences may be submitted, in accordance with Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 936/97, during the first five days of October 2005 for 3 391,363 t.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 11 September 2005.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 9 September 2005.

For the Commission

J. M. SILVA RODRÍGUEZ

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

---

(1)  
  OJ L 160, 26.6.1999, p. 21. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 (OJ L 270, 21.10.2003, p. 1).

1

(2)  
  OJ L 137, 28.5.1997, p. 10. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1118/2004 (OJ L 217, 17.6.2004, p. 10).

2

---
----

| 1. | the report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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 at and for the year ended December 31, 2008. |
|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| December 28, 2010 |   | /s/ Maurice H. Sullivan, Jr.         |
|-------------------|--------|--------------------------------------|
| Date              |   | Maurice H. Sullivan, Jr.             |
|              |   | Chairman and Chief Executive Officer |
|              |   |                                 |
|              |   |                                 |
| December 28, 2010 |   | /s/ Christopher Lake                 |
| Date              |   | Christopher Lake                     |
|              |   | Chief Financial Officer              |

----
(f) _J <( Lu**~;-** 0 -;;-- ...:.l "'= 0' N**~** 

# "" cc L..L1

! ::£: r l ...:: ·- f'--.: CAUSE NO. 12-00021 (Y') ,---

### ~::IN 

# THE INTEREST OF ""' <J =.-:_· ,:-.r**~** ALEXIA ANBTBU TRAN
ACIIILD § § § 

### § §

ORDER VACATING JUDGMENT IN THE DISTRICT COURT 255tJa JUDICIAL DISTRICT
DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS

After due consideration, the Court finds that the summaryjudgment signed on March 5, 2013, was erroneous in that it did not comport with the applicable statute of limitations. The Court finds as such in accordance with a writ ofmandamus to that effect issued by the Court ofAppeals for the Fifth District ofTexas on August 2, 2013.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED by the Court that the motion ofRespondent to vacate thejudgment is granted and that thejudgment that was signed on March 5, 2013, is hereby vacated in its entirety.

Signed

# this---""''-~~---- day of_

..........

# ""kf/~-F--=-------J' 2oL$

DF-1!-000!1 OVACJ ORDER

- VACATE JUDGMENT !81138 

### .1111111111111111111111111
256 La. 353

#### John MILLER et al. v. Lionel J. THOMAS et al.

No. 50642.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 26, 1970.

In re: John Miller, individually and on behalf of his minor daughter, Deborah Ann Miller, applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of St. Charles. 234 So.2d 67.

It is ordered that the writ of review issue; that the Court of Appeal send up the record in duplicate of the case; and that counsel for plaintiff and defendant be notified.