alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
SERVED JULY 20, 2010 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTER OF 

SKYWEST AIRLINES, INC. 

FAA DOCKET NO. CP10NM0002 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

DMS No. FAA-2010 - 0312 

PROCEDURAL ORDER 

Paragraph #2 of the Procedural Order is amended as follows: 

WHEREFORE, the parties be and are hereby ORDERED to adhere to the 

following procedural schedule: 

... On or before December 31, 2010, the parties shall conclude all discovery 

including, but not limited to, depositions, document production, responses to 

production requests and/or interrogatories. If the parties cannot resolve a 

discovery dispute they shall submit the dispute to the undersigned for resolution 

in a timely manner...' 

(Richard L!. Goodwin^ 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

Attachment - Service List 

' The parties have agreed to schedule this case the week of January 10-14, 2011 in Salt Lake City, UT. The 

court will endeavor to accommodate the request, subject to the availability of court facilities. 
FAA Docket No. CP10NM0002 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

SERVICE LIST 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building—Suite 2W1000' 

ONE COPY 

Michael L. Dworkin, Respondent's Counsel 

Michael L. Dworkin and Associates Law Offices 

465 California Street, Suite 210 

San Francisco, CA 94104 

TEL: 415-421-2500 

FAX: 415-421-2560 

Scott R. Morris, Complainant's Counsel 

Attorney, Office of the Regional Counsel 

Northwest Mountain Region, ANM-7 

Federal Aviation Administration 

1601 Lind Avenue, S.W. 

Renton, WA 98057 

TEL: 425-227-1417 

FAX: 425-227-1007 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

East Building Ground Floor, Room El 2-320 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-2139 Attorney-Advisor 

202-366-5121 Legal Assistant 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

' 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., Wilbur Wright Building—Suite 

2W1000, Washington, DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.
14910-I3-P]

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

1010--012'6

[Docket No. FAA-2669-***H; Directorate Identifier 2009-NM-136-AD;

\026 2010-0$-Oie

Amen.dment 39-~; AD2609-}"; -**)

'ONClJ"""NeE,

wUnNG ,,,,mOL

lito-V. LI,

'l/[LSS'ftUA?/

~."TE

lo/2!/Cf

"Ol[nN(;S\'M~"l

IlirR .S

IN AI' G

RlN 2120-AA64

Ainvor-thiness Directives; Airbus Model A340-541 and -642 Airplanes

TE

/0 zl) try

ROllTlNG SYM~O[.

Sf -flEGAGENCY: Federal Aviation Admimstration (FA.A..), Department of Transportation

(DOT).

,",'..fTrNG :;YMool.

ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.

INITIALSiS,G

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new aiIWorthiness directive (AD) for the products 11s d C.c-e"'"--

ATE

above. This AD results from mandatory continuing airwonhiness information (MeAl) i/II~

ImI!llNr;$YM~()L

originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and conect an unsafe L,"TLA~GWUTINGSYM",OL

* * * * * * *

This situation, if not corrected, can affect the aircraft structural

integrity.

During the A340-600 full scale fatigue test, cracks were found on left

and right sides of the rear spar vertical crucifoml at Frame 47.

condition on an aviation product. The MeAl describes the unsafe condition as:

This AD requires actions that are intended to address the unsafe condition described in .[~;" J

the MeAl·)1 ~ 'C

DATES: This AD becomes effective [insert date 15 days after date of publication in th'NI1'lAI._SJ' ••"_.

FEDERAL REGISTER].

The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference o~----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                         493,710
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,224,274
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,281,901
<PP&E>                                      52,841,370
<DEPRECIATION>                              16,194,752
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              45,453,180
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,011,964
<BONDS>                                     32,720,581
<COMMON>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                   8,653,682
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                45,453,180
<SALES>                                      6,841,820
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             7,037,579
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,919,026
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,263,494
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           2,078,582
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (235,874)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (235,874)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (235,874)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### ROYAL ATLANTIC ASSOCIATION, Inc., a Florida non-profit corporation, Appellant, v. ROYAL CONDOMINIUM MANAGERS, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellee.

No. 71-713.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Feb. 8, 1972.

*40Goldstein, Franklin, Chonin & Schrank, North Miami Beach, for appellant.

Spieler & Tendrich, McCarthy, Steel, Hector & Davis, Miami, for appellee.

Before SWANN, C. J., and CHARLES CARROLL and HENDRY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

This is an interlocutory appeal by a condominium association corporation, the defendant below, from a partial summary judgment upholding the validity of a management agreement.

The owner who developed or constructed the condominium and who, prior to sale of the units to purchasers was the sole owner of and in control of the created condominium association, caused the association to enter into a management contract with the plaintiff corporation, for the management of the condominium by the latter. Those actions took place in 1968.

By §§ 711.03(2) and 711.12(1) Fla.Stat., F.S.A. it is provided that the operation of a condominium shall be by the association. The purchasers of the condominium units, after a certain period, renounced the management contract. The management corporation filed suit seeking a judgment declaring the management contract to be valid.

The purchasers of the units of a condominium, who become the members of the condominium association entity and from whose ranks it is then officered (§ 711.12(1) and (2) Fla.Stat., F.S.A.) could enter into a contract for management if they so chose, but this case necessarily involved the question of whether the management contract made by the owner-developer between the association and the management corporation (prior to the sale of the units to purchasers) was valid and binding upon the association when owned by the unit purchasers. See Point East One Condominium Corporation, Inc. v. Point East Management Corporation, Fla.App. 1972, 258 So.2d 322 (opinion filed this date).

Without ruling on the merits of the question or questions involved relating to the validity of the contract, the trial court, on May 25, 1971, entered the partial summary judgment holding the management contract was valid, on the ground that chapter 70-273, § 2, Laws of Florida 1970, had declared to be valid all condominium management contracts made by condominium associations prior to July 1, 1970. However, that statutory provision was repealed by the legislature in 1971, by chapter 71-322.

Accordingly, the judgment appealed from is reversed and the cause is remanded to the circuit court for further proceedings, for consideration and determination of the cause on the merits.

Reversed and remanded with directions.
**Exhibit 99.1**

 

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICERCERTIFICATION PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

I, Howard R. Levine, certify that thequarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended May 31, 2003, ofFamily Dollar Stores, Inc.

 

(a)                                  fully complies with the requirementsof Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and

 

(b)                                 the information contained in thequarterly report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of Family Dollar Stores, Inc.

 

 

Date:  July 2, 2003

 

 
| /s/ Howard R. Levine                 |   |
|--------------------------------------|--------|
| Howard R. Levine                     |
| Chairman and Chief Executive Officer |

 

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 hasbeen provided to Family Dollar Stores, Inc. and will be retained by FamilyDollar Stores, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission orits staff upon request.

 

----
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

August 26, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-10120

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 PlaintiffAppellee,

versus

LAQUISIA PATRICE GREEN,

 DefendantAppellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:02-CR-132-ALL-A

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

Before SMITH, DEMOSS and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Laquisia Patrice Green appeals her judgment of conviction and sentence, following a guilty

plea, for conspiracy to commit bank fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 371 and 1344. Green argues

that the district court deprived her of counsel of her choice and also arguesthat the court should have

construed a particular pro se letter to the court as a motion to withdraw her guilty plea. 
-2-

Green does not dispute that then-retained counsel’s motion to withdraw did not satisfy the

requirements of Local Criminal Rule 57.12. District courts may implement and enforce local rules.

E.g., United States v. Yeatts, 639 F.2d 1186, 1188 (5thCir. 1981). Green has not demonstrated that

the district court’s order, changing counsel’s status from retained to court-appointed, infringed on

her constitutional rights. See United States v. Hughey, 147 F.3d 423, 429 (5th Cir. 1998). Green

is not entitled to the appointment of counsel of her choice. United States v. Breeland, 53 F.3d 100,

106 n.11 (5th Cir. 1995); Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 228 (5th Cir. 1993)(28 U.S.C. § 2254

case).

Green has not demonstrated plain error with respect to her argument that the district court

should have construed a pro se letter as a motion to withdraw her guilty plea. See FED. R. CRIM. P.

52(b); United States v. Calverley, 37 F.3d 160, 162-64 (5thCir. 1994) (en banc) (citing United States

v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 730-37 (1993)), abrogated in part, Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461

(1997). 

AFFIRMED.
Document

Exhibit 10.3


Sabine Pass Liquefaction, LLC


November 3, 2021


Cheniere Marketing International LLP
3rd Floor, The Zig Zag Building
70 Victoria Street
London SW1E 6SQ, United Kingdom
Attn: Commercial Operations


Re:       Letter Agreement regarding the Base SPA (“Letter Agreement”)


Dear Sir or Madam:


The Parties have entered into that certain Amended and Restated LNG Sale and Purchase Agreement (FOB) dated August 5, 2014 between Sabine Pass Liquefaction, LLC and Cheniere Marketing International LLP (as assignee of Cheniere Marketing, LLC) (as amended and assigned, the “Base SPA”).  Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meanings given them in the Base SPA.  This Letter Agreement sets forth the terms of certain sales and purchases of LNG under the Base SPA.


The Parties hereby agree that, notwithstanding Section 9.2 and subject to Section 14 of the Base SPA, the FPC (expressed in USD per MMBtu) applicable to up to thirty-five (35) cargoes scheduled for delivery in Contract Year 2022 shall equal USD one decimal nine two per MMBtu (US$1.92/MMBtu).


Please indicate Buyer’s agreement with the terms of this Letter Agreement by executing a copy of this Letter Agreement where indicated below and returning it to Seller. 


Sincerely,


Sabine Pass Liquefaction, LLC


						
	By:	/s/ Zach Davis
		Zach Davis
		Chief Financial Officer




Accepted and Agreed:
												
	Cheniere Marketing International LLP	
	acting by its managing member, Cheniere Marketing, LLC
				
	By:	/s/ Anatol Feygin	
		Anatol Feygin		
		Executive Vice President and Chief Commercial Officer




700 Milam Street, Suite 1900, Houston, Texas 77002
+1 713-375-5000
### -78.5 -78.0 -77.5 -77.0 -76.5 -76.0 -75.5

37.5 38.0 38.5 39.0 

## ★
▲ ▲ ▲ ▲



## ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 

### 500 1000 1500 100 18 12 06 00 08/25 

## NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

# Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 25 Aug 06

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 38.81 N 76.74 WMeters AGL 

## ★

■ ■
■ ■ 

## ★ ■ ■ ■ ■ 

## ★

● ● ● ● 

## ★ ● ● ● ●
#### Ex parte Ellis SMITH, Jr.

77-715.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

Sept. 15, 1978.

EMBRY, Justice.

WRIT DENIED.

TORBERT, C. J., and BLOODWORTH, FAULKNER and ALMON, JJ., concur.
November 14, 2011

Analyst Contact:
Andrew Ziola918-588-7163Media Contact:
Brad Borror918-588-7582


ONEOK Partners to Participate in RBC Capital Markets
 MLP Conference
  TULSA, Okla. –Nov. 14, 2011 -- ONEOK Partners, L.P. (NYSE: OKS) will participate in the RBC Capital Markets Master Limited Partnership Conference on Thursday, Nov. 17, 2011, and Friday, Nov. 18, 2011, in Dallas, Texas.
  Terry K. Spencer, ONEOK Partners chief operating officer, will be conducting a series of one-on-one meetings with members of the investment community.
  The materials utilized at the conference will be accessible on the ONEOK Partners website, www.oneokpartners.com, on Nov. 17, 2011.
  
 
 ONEOK Partners, L.P. (NYSE: OKS) is one of the largest publicly traded master limited partnerships, and is a leader in the gathering, processing, storage and transportation of natural gas in the U.S. and owns one of the nation’s premier natural gas liquids (NGL) systems, connecting NGL supply in the Mid-Continent and Rocky Mountain regions with key market centers. Its general partner is a wholly owned subsidiary of ONEOK, Inc. (NYSE: OKE), a diversified energy company, which owns 42.8 percent of the overall partnership interest. ONEOK is one of the largest natural gas distributors in the United States, and its energy services operation focuses primarily on marketing natural gas and related services throughout the U.S.
  For more information, visit the website at www.oneokpartners.com.
  For the latest news about ONEOK Partners, follow us on Twitter@ONEOKPartners.
 
 ###
#### Allen C. PARTNER v. T. E. MERCER TRUCKING CO. et al.

No. 60116.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 16, 1977.

In re: Allen C. Partner, applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, Parish of Caddo. 345 So.2d 966.

Writ denied. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal there is no error of law in its judgment.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-17-00290-CV

In the Interest of D.M.O.

From the 45th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2016-PA-00385

Honorable Stephani A. Walsh, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE ANGELINI, JUSTICE ALVAREZ, AND JUSTICE RIOS

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is 

REVERSED and the cause is REMANDED to the trial court for a new trial. It is ORDERED that 

costs of this appeal are taxed against Appellees. 

SIGNED March 21, 2018.

_____________________________

Irene Rios, Justice
EXHIBIT 32.2

** **

FIRST HARTFORD CORPORATION

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

 

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of First Hartford Corporation (the“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended January 31, 2008 as filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), IStuart I. Greenwald, Treasurer, of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that:

 

1.       Thereport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.       Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.

 

 

 

/s/ Stuart I. Greenwald

__________________________________________

Stuart I. Greenwald

Treasurer & Chief Financial Officer

 

Date:  March 24,2008
263 La. 249

#### STATE of Louisiana v. Carlos TAUCEDA.

No. 52722.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 26, 1972.

Orleans Indigent Defender Program, William H. Byrnes, III, New Orleans, for defendant-appellant.

William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Harry H. Howard, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jim Garrison, Dist. Atty., Louise Korns, Asst. Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant, Carlos Tauceda, was convicted of simple burglary (La.R.S. 14:62) and was sentenced to six years at the Louisiana State Penitentiary. He appeals his conviction and sentence.

One bill of exceptions was reserved and perfected to the trial court’s denial of a motion for new trial. The grounds for the motion were that the verdict was contrary to the law and evidence and that the verdict was not unanimous.

We have repeatedly held that a motion for new trial based on the general allegation that the verdict is contrary to the law and evidence presents nothing for review. State v. Dillon, 260 La. 215, 255 So.2d 745 (1971).

According to La.C.Cr.P. Art. 782 only nine of the twelve jurors must concur in order to render a verdict for the crime of simple burglary. La.R.S. 14:62. The contention of defendant on this point has been rejected. Johnson v. Louisiana, 406 U.S. 356, 92 S.Ct. 1620, 32 L.Ed.2d 152 (1972).

The bill is without merit.

The conviction and sentence are affirmed.
, . 

Fallon Brizendine, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Charles Herbold, 

Defendant. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Civil Action No. 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

FILED 

NOV 302009 

Clerk, u.s. District and 

Bankruptcy Courts 

09 2275 

This matter is before the Court on plaintiffs pro se complaint and application to proceed 

informa pauperis. The Court will grant plaintiffs application and dismiss the complaint for lack 

of subject matter jurisdiction. 

The subject matter jurisdiction of the federal district courts is limited and is set forth 

generally at 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332. Under those statutes, federal jurisdiction is available 

only when a "federal question" is presented or the parties are of diverse citizenship and the 

amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. A party seeking relief in the district court must at least 

plead facts that bring the suit within the court's jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Failure to 

plead such facts warrants dismissal of the action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). 

Plaintiff, a resident of Frederick, Maryland, sues a resident of the District of Columbia 

for an alleged debt of $14, 465.00 "accrued over a 2-year period." Compi. at 1. The complaint 

neither presents a federal question nor provides a basis for diversity jurisdiction because the 

amount in controversy is well below the minimum amount for diversity jurisdiction. 
Accordingly, the complaint must be dismissed. 1 A separate Order accompanies this 

Memorandum Opinion. 

/I ~ <.,.J"., l 

Date: ~r __ , ~009 United States DistrIct Judge 

-

1 Presumably, plaintiffs recourse lies in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. 

2
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER ON MOTION

Cause Number: 01-13-00092-CV

Trial Court Cause 

Number: 07CV0920

Style: Augusta Barge Company

v Doug R. Gay

Date motion filed*: May 15, 2013

Type of motion: Motion for extension of time to file reporter's record

Party filing motion: Court reporter

Document to be filed: Reporter's record

Is appeal accelerated? Yes No

If motion to extend time:

Original due date: March 3, 2013

Number of previous extensions granted: 1

Date Requested: May 31, 2013

Ordered that motion is:

 Granted

If document is to be filed, document due: May 31, 2013

Absent extraordinary circumstances, the Court will not grant additional motions to extend time

 The Court will not grant additional motions to extend time.

 Denied

 Dismissed (e.g., want of jurisdiction, moot)

 Other: 

Judge's signature: /s/ Terry Jennings 

 Acting individually Acting for the Court

Date: May 22, 2013
Please note that, in some cases, the entity listed in the “LICENSEE,” “CASE LICENSEE,” or 

“CASE LICENSEE NAME” fields may be a party to a licensed transaction other than the party 

that was actually licensed to engage in the transaction by OFAC. The information that populates 

these fields is derived from OFAC’s correspondence database. There is no standard format for 

an incoming license request, and the actual party seeking the license may not be evident on the 

face of the license request. Given the volume of incoming correspondence processed by OFAC, 

in some cases, the name of a party other than the license applicant will be entered into the 

correspondence database field that is imported into the licensing database, while the applicant’s 

name is entered into another field in the correspondence database. OFAC is able to locate 

license records by licensee name by searching multiple fields of the correspondence database, 

and does not rely on the licensing database for this purpose. 

Additionally, please note that the term “licensed” as used in the “STATUS” field does not 

necessarily indicate that a license was issued by OFAC. It may also indicate that a licensing 

matter was closed for another reason – for example, the issuance of a letter by OFAC advising 

that no license is required for a particular transaction. Accordingly, inclusion of an entity’s name 

in the database being released to you should not be construed as a definitive indication that the 

entity was issued a license by OFAC.