alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
REGULATORY EVALUATION

Directorate Identifier: 2013-NM-070-AD

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific 

requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska, where aviation might be the only mode of 

transportation?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

July 21, 2017

No. 04-16-00786-CV

Anthony MOORE and Joann Moore,

Appellants

v.

David SUBIA,

Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 3, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2016CV04165

Honorable David J. Rodriguez, Judge Presiding

ORDER

Appellant’s brief was due July 17, 2017. On July 17, 2017, Appellants filed a second 

motion for extension of time requesting a two-week extension. We GRANT appellants’ motion 

for extension of time and ORDER appellants to file their brief on or before August 1, 2017. NO 

FURTHER EXTENSIONS WILL BE GRANTED.

_________________________________

Karen Angelini, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 21st day of July, 2017.

___________________________________

Luz Estrada

Chief Deputy Clerk
#### Ann MATLACK and First Bank and Trust Company of Boca Raton, a National Association, Executors of the Will of Robert Matlack, Appellants, v. COMBS-GATES AIRCRAFT, INC., a foreign corporation, Appellee.

No. 72-336.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

June 26, 1972.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Palm Beach County; Culver Smith, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
Writ of Mandamus Dismissed; Opinion issued March 27, 2013 

# S

In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05

- 13

- 00243

- CV
IN RE TIMOTHY SCOTT HARRIMAN , Relator
On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 5 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F94

- 01553

- ML

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Bridges, Murphy , and Lewis Opinion by Justice Bridges Relator contends the trial court failed to act on his motion for DNA te sting. The facts and issues are well known to the parties, so we need not recount them herein. The relief requested by relator has been granted. Therefore, the issues presented in this petition are moot. See Dow

Chem. Co. v. Garcia , 909 S.W.2d 503, 505 (Tex. 1995) (orig. proceeding). Accordingly, we

DISMISS relator’s petition for a writ of mandamus.

130243F.P05 /David L. Bridges/ DAVID L. BRIDGES JUSTICE
#### THE FLORIDA BAR, Petitioner, v. COUNSELING, RESEARCH AND TRAINING SERVICES, INC., a Florida corporation, and John H. Dale, Jr., Respondents.

No. 42495.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Dec. 6, 1972.

Leonard Rivkind, Miami Beach, and Richard C. McFarlain, Tallahassee, for petitioner.

Counseling, Research and Training Services, Inc., and John H. Dale, Jr., in pro per, for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

This cause is before us on Petition Against Unauthorized Practice of Law and Rule to Show Cause issued thereon.

Respondents are charged with, and have admitted, engaging in the unauthorized practice of law. The activities in question included advertising in a local newspaper the offer to provide both legal counselling and the giving of legal advice for a fee. None of the respondents are members of The Florida Bar and are not, therefore, licensed to engage in the practice of law in this State.

On July 25, 1972, this Court issued a Rule to Show Cause why respondents should not be held in contempt. Respondents have answered, consenting to the entry of a permanent injunction but praying that this Court not hold them in contempt.

The Florida Bar informs us that respondents have ceased the activities complained of and to date, so far as the Bar knows, have not resumed the unauthorized practice of law.

Accordingly, we withhold adjudication of contempt without prejudice to- further proceedings by the Bar should any further activities constituting the unauthorized *366practice of law by respondents become known and respondents are permanently enjoined from engaging in the unauthorized practice of law in this State.

It is so ordered.

ROBERTS, C. J., and ERVIN, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
#### FLORACRET, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. John R. AMMON, Appellee.

No. 70-288.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Sept. 16, 1970.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 8, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-46,473-16

IN RE RONNEY EARL WILLIAMS, Relator

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS

CAUSE NO. 74312 IN THE 412 DISTRICT COURT TH

FROM BRAZORIA COUNTY

Per curiam.

O R D E R

Relator has filed a motion for leave to file a writ of mandamus pursuant to the original

jurisdiction of this Court. In it, he contends that he filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus

in the 412 District Court of Brazoria County, that more than 35 days have elapsed, and that the th

application has not yet been forwarded to this Court.

In these circumstances, additional facts are needed. Respondent, the District Clerk of

Brazoria County, is ordered to file a response, which may be made by submitting the record on such

habeas corpus application, submitting a copy of a timely filed order which designates issues to be

investigated (see McCree v. Hampton, 824 S.W.2d 578, 579 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992)), or stating that
2

Relator has not filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus in Brazoria County. Should the

response include an order designating issues, proof of the date the district attorney’s office was

served with the habeas application shall also be submitted with the response. This application for

leave to file a writ of mandamus shall be held in abeyance until Respondent has submitted the

appropriate response. Such response shall be submitted within 30 days of the date of this order.

Filed: December 10, 2014

Do not publish
;z



### UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FORTHE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
ANTHONY ANTONIO MARTIN, Plaintiff, v. Civil ActionNo. 10-1957 D.C. JAIL, 

### etai., Defendants. 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION 

# FILED MAY 16 

## 20U 

# t,ltrk, u.s. District & Bankruptcy urts forthe District of ColumbIa

The Court dismissed this action without prejudice because plaintiffdid not submit a certified copy ofhis trust fund account statement, including the supporting ledger sheets, for the six-month period immediately proceeding the filing ofhis complaint, as is required under 28 U.S.C. 

### § 1915(a)(2). Plaintiffsince has submitted the required financial information, and this matter is before the Court on plaintiffs "Motion [to] Keep Case Open." The Court will grant this motion, grant plaintiffs motion for leave to proceed 

### informapauperis, and dismiss this action without prejudice for lack ofsubject matterjurisdiction. Plaintiff, who currently is detained at the D.C. Jail, brings this action against the institution, the District ofColumbia Department ofCorrections and Sgt. Hazel Lee. He appears to allege that Sgt. Lee misconstrued an inmate grievance he submitted, and now demands compensation of$250,000.00. Federal district courts havejurisdiction in civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws or treaties ofthe United States. 

### See 28 U.S.C. 

### § 1331. In addition, federal district courts havejurisdiction over civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds $75,000, and the suit is between citizens ofdifferent states. 

### See 28 U.S.C. 

### § 1332(a). This complaint neither states afederal claim nor establishes diversity ofcitizenship ofthe parties. Accordingly, the Court will dismiss this action for lack ofsubject matterjurisdiction. An Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

United States District Judge
Tr is a] e i mir is ae $
APART AG) reer tos ponte | G18) 3 Foe) Pte | Mhetee wescgmn |$) 4) | ag 14] | | otiaoe BT
| ssuiaiinindl se { |] Aeeeccoocls | i a
Fl | EAE PN i HEE fs
Vial) 91.) te {sie 7 8 | 0 10 -fifa2} 13 {14 jist) as [1
an Leyla Mtalph.\ tp Mids Caizpuenter"s a BZ Ate4 pa

Visit http://www.archives.gov for more information about publicly available records like thi

all

ans

i [ral

eel Pal

BA blow DUM)" cae

pi alaltal hey ih a

Lt tae Why pir as

pe Sheol

imal

ae ed.

Historic census records are maintained and released by the National Archives and Records Administration, not the U.S. Census Bureau.

@ one shown here.

ee wn Be we we

f See penis: ;
pin ets Sele ad ral
u gag XC mor rae
ge yale aay iE
fartel Mary \Sa. gra
Wael Bebe Vestal > Ze 1
Ni Bak
8B) el Ahitenn
hr
i
Tht
sane
ane
iu
* Pursuant to 5 TH 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 5 TH CIR
. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED August 8, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk 

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-50147 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee

v. JOE FLORES, JR Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 1:06-CR-205-ALL
Before DENNIS, CLEMENT, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Joe Flores, Jr., presents arguments that he concedes are foreclosed by United States v. Daugherty, 264 F.3d 513, 518 (5th Cir. 2001), which rejected a Commerce Clause challenge to the felon-in-possession-of-a-firearm statute, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). The Government's motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and thejudgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
|                                              | BNL FINANCIAL CORPORATION |                                                                                           |
|---------------------------------------------------|---------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                              |                      |                                                                                           |   |
| Date:      March 30, 2010     | By:                       | /s/      Wayne E.      Ahart            |   |
|                                              |                      | Wayne      E. Ahart                                                                            |   |
|                                              |                      | Chairman      of the Board of Directors                                                        |   |
|                                              |                      | and      Chief Executive Officer                                                               |   |

|                      |   |                                                                                             |
|---------------------------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                      |   |                                                                                             |   |
| Date:      March 30, 2010 | By:    | /s/ Barry N.      Shamas             |   |
|                      |   | Barry      N. Shamas                                                                             |   |
|                      |   | Executive      Vice President,                                                                   |   |
|                      |   | Chief      Operating Officer and Chief Financial Officer                                         |   |
MEMORANDUM

DATE: 1/8 /20 15

TO: CSAPR Update Proposal Meeting ; Docket I D : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

– 201 5

- 0 500

FROM: Jeremy Mark , EPA

SUBJECT: CSAPR Update Proposal

SUMMARY

A phone call was held between EPA and the below attendees on 1/ 8 /2015 to discuss the

CSAPR Update Proposal

. The proposed CSAPR Updated Proposal was proposed on December

3

, 201 5

.

ATTENDEES

Jeremy Mark, EPA

Randy Strait, North Carolina DEQ
#### John S. DUCZER v. STATE BANKING DEPARTMENT.

No. 9319.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.

April 24, 1973.

Curtis K. Stafford, Jr., and James F. Pierson, Jr., Baton Rouge, for appellant.

Kenneth E. Pickering, New Orleans, for State Banking Commissioner of La.

Before LOTTINGER, ELLIS and CRAIN, JJ.

CRAIN, Judge.

This is an appeal from a Louisiana Civil Service Commission opinion which summarily dismissed without a hearing appellant’s application for an appeal.

On June 2, 1972, appellant submitted the following letter to Mr. Clebert C. Smith, State Banking Commissioner:

> “ . . . Please accept my resignation as, Senior Small Loan Examiner effective to-day June 2, 1972, which is due to personal reasons that I have discussed with you earlier in the day.

> Yours truly:

> John S. Duczer”

*454On June 30, 1972, appellant filed a petition for appeal to the Louisiana Civil Service Commission wherein he made the following allegation:

> “ . . . Appellant has been a classified employee employed as a State Banking examiner for the State of Louisiana for 17 years with a monthly salary of $1,200.00. On June 2, 1972, *Appellant was forced to resign his position*by the State Banking Commissioner, Colbert (sic) Smith, for the apparent reason that appellant was indebted to institutions that are under the Supervision (sic) of the Louisiana Banking Department . . .” (emphasis added).

On September 28, 1972, the State Banking Department filed a “Motion for Summary Disposition of Appeal” with the Civil Service Commission. This motion asked for a dismissal of the Duczer appeal on the ground that Duczer resigned, and was not dismissed.

On November 27, 1972, the Civil Service Commission issued an opinion granting the dismissal of the Duczer appeal on the grounds that he had resigned voluntarily. There was never an evidentiary, hearing.

Appellee argues here, as before the Civil Service Commission, that appellant resigned of his own free will and thus has no right of appeal. Appellee further argues that appellant admits to resigning of his own free will. The record does not support this contention. Appellant admits submitting a letter of resignation, but specifically argues that it was not of his own free will. If Duczer voluntarily resigned, then he has no right of appeal. On the other hand if he was forced to submit his resignation without cause, he does have the right to appeal, c. f. Carpenter v. Confederate Memorial Medical Center, 250 So.2d 161 (La.App.1971). There appears to be no way to resolve the factual dispute without a hearing as to the facts surrounding the termination of the employment.

Accordingly, the opinion of the Civil Service Commission is hereby reversed, and set aside, and the matter' remanded to the Commission for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.

Reversed and remanded.
March 10, 2014 

Memorandum 

Subject: Summary of Conference Call with Alcoa Intalco Representatives 

From: David Green, RTI 

To: David Putney, EPA/OAQPS 

I. Purpose

 The purpose of the call was to discuss a test report submitted March 6, 2014 describing 

comparative stationary and traversed sampling of secondary potroom emissions of polycyclic 

organic matter (POM). 

II. Date and Time 

 The call was held March 7, 2014 between 11:00 a. m. and 12:00 noon.. 

III. Attendees

 David Putney, EPA/OAQPS 

 David Green, RTI 

 Mike Palazzolo, Alcoa 

 Patricia Bliskis, Alcoa 

 Laurie Shelby, Alcoa 

IV. Summary

 

 Testing was conducted in January, 2014 to determine emissions of particulate matter 

(PM) and POM from a single wet scrubber controlling roof vent emissions from a side worked 

prebake potline. Samples were taken on two consecutive days using stationary and traversed 

sampling methods. Alcoa representatives stated a preference for stationary sampling for reasons 

of safety and cost, and requested approval for this approach prior to conducting additional 

sampling to supplement data obtained in 2011 and 2012. Potential explanations for anomalously 

high data from a 6 run test conducted in June, 2013 by traversed sampling were also discussed.
#### Robert D. RYAN and Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, a foreign corporation, Appellants, v. Ruth GLADWELL and Richard M. Gladwell, Executors of the Estate of William W. Gladwell, Deceased, Appellees.

No. 72-9.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Aug. 1, 1972.

*64Weissenborn, Burr & Hyman, Miami, for appellants.

Horton, Schwartz & Perse, Sams, Anderson, Alper, Spencer & Post, Miami, for appellees.

Before BARKDULL, C. J., and PEARSON and HENDRY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The point presented on this appeal urges that the trial court erred in ruling against the appellants when they moved to amend their answer by asserting a defense “in the nature of res judicata.” During the trial, appellants’ counsel sought to introduce into evidence a “hold harmless agreement” whereby an insurance company for a jointly liable defendant paid the full extent of its coverage in return for plaintiffs’ agreement to hold it harmless from all monetary exposure incurred as a result of the litigation. The court properly held that the execution of this agreement did not constitute a splitting of the cause of action. See Fla.Stat. § 768.041, F.S.A.; Jacksonville Terminal Company v. Misak, Fla.1958, 102 So.2d 295; Clemons v. Clark, Fla.App.1965, 172 So.2d 242.

Affirmed.
f\ | : ee ee i 9 Ap Barrisutel oe, te “?

STATE _._ OE YA, DEPARTMEN COMMERCE AND LABOR-—BUREAU OF THE CENSUS 1:25 { Supervisor's District No. oF JF 3S:

RON Se OS ae THIRTEENTH CENSUS OF THE UNITED STATES: 1910—POPULATION feiluiekinion Dretmor 06, ae 2a

TOWNSQIP OR OTHER DIVISION OF COUNTY eA A

[Inenet proper tame ebd, alav, name of clase, as Wwnsl@, Lown, precinct, district, hundred, leat, etc, Bee Inatrctine |

NAME OF INCORPORATED PLACE. wt ae veewseeee WARD OF CITY C220.

[lneert proper name and, ales, . ‘of claas, ase ity, village, wn, of borvw ugh. "Ree Instrae tion] =
4 ?,

Di«a%t ite, ype ‘
St pasaaee conaee es bnctioanions  one cae Wedivpie ibe Naas aes OS aha ate EAR OLENA Meee ENUMERATED BY ME ON THE _._ RF. BY AT RR _ DAY OF et foetif, tgto. Charter. (gp sD

cit—axt NAME OF INSTITUTION
LOCATIOS. NAME RELATION. PERSONAL DESCRIPTION. NATIVITY. CITIZESSI?.

of each person whose place of abode on April 15,
1910, was in this family.

Relationship of this per-
Ester sarname first. thre the citrem same and middle
izitial, if ans. 208 as head of the

OCCTUPATIOY.

order Of vba

Hrathon.

|

ed,

c | Mother of | Place of birth of each person and pareuts of each pasar enomerated. If born In the United States, | 5 =
bow many glve the state or territury. If of foreign birth, give the country. sa |
childrens, i)

alnele

Whether able to speak ‘
Engileh; or, If not, Trade or profession of, or (ieneral natare of Industry.
clive language spokes. particular kind of work business, or establishment
dowe by this person, as law bich this person works,
spinner. saleaman, la- BS cotton mill, dry goods
o.

oe le or

deroluleltation,|
matural-

feed or alles.

Age at last birth-
day.
ad,

Whether

ow | married, witow
or divorced,

weile.

werk oatef] =
verk =

tr

I'lace of birth of Father of | [lace of birth of Mother of
thin person. this persog, f 3

fag how

Number of dwell
Nambecrofyearsof
present marciag

tlon to the

ed States,
moartanaed,

Number of famtl
| Year of irmm

Iaclade every rises ew April 15, 1910. Omit
chllsres bers alace April 15, 1910.

(aso - =

oe | Whether able to
| Farm or boner,

@ | Color or race.
ow | Whether

@m | Sex.
a

ow
a

13 1s /e/

sn BOP | eer gta. | PA2xs
ge SS uml YLG-
Tod iaere

&.

Hy

as " “ne

NIRS
ss

ns oOo & & © wie

the National Archives and Records Administration,
not the U.S. Census Bureau.

Visit http:/(www.archives.gov for more information about publicly
available records like the one shown here.

— }—
Lo vf,
as (a1 td Lawl | LZ

—

| DAidravg, ©

; use lyaurl-ok cena

>

Ltt Oo”

~

J f 4 |
c SS PENS he _ rt x24 | Bia Bart na ai esp v pork AAG Ae , fide Gas
td

‘ | Uv far aw 4 : Z 6 its

ir)
gubche

| = ee = 4
if. / Af lA fn a

Lbisdon hig 4 Z as
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
STATEMENTS OF CONSOLIDATED OPERATIONS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                     103,587,000
<SECURITIES>                               257,818,000
<RECEIVABLES>                               39,173,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                 7,324,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           252,935,000
<PP&E>                                     140,130,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              40,326,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             629,462,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      176,405,000
<BONDS>                                     66,189,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        89,000
<OTHER-SE>                                 234,393,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               629,462,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           575,411,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              518,910,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             9,999,000<F1>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           4,888,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             41,614,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                10,471,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         31,143,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                31,143,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.76
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.00
<FN>
<F1>Acquisition, Restructuring and Other, and Minority Interests in Subsidiary
Loss
</FN>


</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT FOR THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 24-0218

IN THE MATTER OF:

H.M.H,

A Youth In Need Of Care.

ORDER 

Upon consideration of the Motion to Withdraw as Counsel of Record, and 

with good cause appearing therefore, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Father and Appellant in this matter, H.M.H., shall 

file a response to this motion within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order. The 

response must be served upon all counsel of record, including the Attorney 

General, the County Attorney, and the Appellate Defender’s Office. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of this Court shall give notice of this 

Order by mail to all counsel of record and to Father and appellant, H.M.H. at that 

person’s last known address.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

August 1 2024

08/01/2024

Case Number: DA 24-0218
#### ATLANTIC COAST LINE RAILROAD COMPANY, a railroad corporation, Appellant, v. J. J. KEEN, Appellee.

No. 67-848.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

July 16, 1968.

Dixon, Dejarnette, Bradford, Williams, McKay & Kimbrell, Miami, for appellant.

Green & Hastings and Irma Robbins Feder, Miami, for appellee.

Before PEARSON, BARKDULL and HENDRY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Bailey v. Central Vermont Railway, 319 U.S. 350, 63 S.Ct. 1062, 87 L.Ed. 1444; Marmo v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railroad Company, 350 F.2d 236, 11 A.L.R.3d 1 (7th Cir.1965); Chambers v. Loftin, Fla. 1953, 67 So.2d 220; Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Holliday, 73 Fla. 269, 74 So. 479; § 59.041, Fla.Stat., F.S.A.