alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Table 6.  Homeownership Rates by Area:  Fourth Quarter 2004 and 2005
                 (in percent)


                                    Fourth     Fourth         90-Percent
Area                                quarter    quarter    Confidence Interval (&plusmn;)<sup>a</sup>
                                     2004       2005    of 2005 rate of difference

United States.....................      69.2       69.0        0.5         0.4

  Inside Core-Based
     Statistical Areas�...........      NA         67.6        1.3          NA
    In central cities.............      NA         54.3        1.0          NA
    Not in central cities
    (suburbs).....................      NA         76.5        1.2          NA
  Outside Core-Based
    Statistical Areas.............      NA         76.2        2.6          NA

 Northeast........................      65.2       65.4        0.9         0.8
 Midwest..........................      73.7       72.8        1.0         0.7
 South............................      71.5       71.1        0.9         0.6
 West.............................      63.9       64.6        1.2         0.8
 
 
    aA 90-percent confidence interval is a measure of an estimate's reliability.  The larger the confidence interval is, in
    relation to the size of the estimate, the less reliable the estimate.
NA  Not Available.  Core-Based Statistical Area data for 2005 and later are not comparable to earlier data.  Beginning in 
first quarter 2005, the Current Population Survey/Housing Vacancy Survey is using the new metropolitan and micropolitan 
definitions that were announced by were announced by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in June 2003, and were based 
on the application of the 2000 standards to Census 2000 data.  OMB announced updates as of December 2003, based on application 
of the 2000 standards to more recent Census Bureau estimates.  The December 2003 definitions are available at  
http://www.census.gov./population/www/estimates/metrodef.html.
II 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1880 

To provide that the annual adjustment of retired pay for members of the 

Armed Forces under the age of 62 under the Bipartisan Budget Act 

of 2013 shall not apply to members retired for disability and to retired 

pay used to compute certain Survivor Benefit Plan annuities. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

DECEMBER 19, 2013 

Mrs. MURRAY (for herself, Mr. CHAMBLISS, Mr. ISAKSON, and Mr. PRYOR) 

introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 

Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To provide that the annual adjustment of retired pay for 

members of the Armed Forces under the age of 62 

under the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 shall not apply 

to members retired for disability and to retired pay used 

to compute certain Survivor Benefit Plan annuities. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1880 IS

1 SECTION 1. INAPPLICABILITY OF ANNUAL ADJUSTMENT OF 

2 RETIRED PAY FOR MEMBERS OF THE ARMED 

3 FORCES UNDER THE AGE OF 62 UNDER THE 

4 BIPARTISAN BUDGET ACT OF 2013 TO MEM5 BERS RETIRED FOR DISABILITY AND TO RE6 TIRED PAY USED TO COMPUTE CERTAIN SUR7 VIVOR BENEFIT PLAN ANNUITIES. 

8 (a) INAPPLICABILITY.—Effective as of December 1, 

9 2015, and immediately after the coming into effect of sec10 tion 403 of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013, paragraph 

11 (4) of section 1401a(b) of title 10, United States Code, 

12 as added by section 403(a) of the Bipartisan Budget Act 

13 of 2013, is amended— 

14 (1) in subparagraph (A), by inserting after 

15 ‘‘age’’ the following: ‘‘(other than a member or 

16 former member retired under chapter 61 of this 

17 title)’’; and 

18 (2) by adding at the end the following new sub19 paragraph: 

20 ‘‘(F) INAPPLICABILITY TO AMOUNT OF RE21 TIRED PAY USED IN COMPUTATION OF SBP AN22 NUITY FOR SURVIVORS.—In the computation 

23 pursuant to subsection (d) or (f) of section 

24 1448 of this title of an annuity for survivors of 

25 a member or person who dies while subject to 

26 the application of this paragraph, the amount 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 1880 IS

1 of the retired pay of such member or person for 

2 purposes of such computation shall be the 

3 amount of retired pay that would have been 

4 payable to such member or person at the time 

5 of death without regard to the application of 

6 this paragraph.’’. 

7 (b) EXCLUSION OF BUDGETARY EFFECTS FROM

8 PAYGO SCORECARDS.— 

9 (1) STATUTORY PAY-AS-YOU-GO SCORECARDS.— 

10 The budgetary effects of this Act shall not be en11 tered on either PAYGO scorecard maintained pursu12 ant to section 4(d) of the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go 

13 Act of 2010. 

14 (2) SENATE PAYGO SCORECARDS.—The budg15 etary effects of this Act shall not be entered on any 

16 PAYGO scorecard maintained for purposes of sec17 tion 201 of S. Con. Res. 21 (110th Congress). 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### James Roy SULLIVAN v. SPEEDWAY OIL COMPANY and Billy Joe Wells d/b/a Speedway Oil Company, etc.

Civ. 1254.

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

Dec. 21, 1977.

*1384Sam L. Webb, Jr., of Callahan, Nichols & Webb, Tuscaloosa, for appellant.

Michael D. Smith, Tuscaloosa, for appel-lees.

WRIGHT, Presiding Judge.

This is an appeal from a judgment granting a Rule 60(b) motion.

Plaintiff brought an action against Speedway Oil Company and Billy Joe Wells d/b/a Speedway Oil Company and Billy Joe Wells, individually.

Speedway Oil Company was in fact a corporation with an office in Tuscaloosa County, Alabama. Billy Joe Wells was the president of the corporation. The corporation employed a young woman to answer the phone, receive and file reports and otherwise-pass on to Mr. Wells matters which came to her attention in his absence from the office.

A deputy sheriff brought copies of the summons and complaints to the office for service. Mr. Wells was not present. He left two copies with the young woman in the corporate office and made return on the originals showing service upon Billy Joe Wells, individually and as agent for Speedway Oil Company. The copies were placed in a file marked “legal” by the young woman in the office and were not brought to the attention of Wells.

Default judgment was subsequently entered in the amount of $5,000. Garnishment of the bank account of Speedway Oil Company was filed. Notice of the garnishment by the bank to Wells was the first that he knew of the suit. Wells immediately, through counsel, filed a 60(b) motion to set aside the judgment. Grounds for the motion were stated to be failure of proper service upon the defendants.

The motion, supported by affidavits was heard by the court and judgment entered thereon setting aside the judgment by default and reinstating the case. The court stated in its judgment that it found that Wells was not personally served with process either as an individual nor as agent for the corporation and that he had no notice of the suit until the service of garnishment on the bank.

Plaintiff brought appeal from the Rule 60(b) judgment.

A motion for relief from a judgment under Rule 60(b) is addressed to the discretion of the court and equitable principles may be considered in the exercise of that discretion. *Bros Inc. v. W. E. Grace Mfg. Co.,*320 F.2d 594 (5th Cir. 1963). Rule 60(b) has been liberally applied in the setting aside of default judgments so that there might be a trial on the merits. *Schwab v. Bullock’s, Inc.,*508 F.2d 353 (9th Cir. 1974). However, in this case we do not consider whether the trial court abused its discretion, but we dismiss the appeal ex mero motu because an order granting a motion under Rule 60(b) and ordering a new trial is interlocutory and not appealable. *Crowe*v. *Ragnar Benson, Inc.,*307 F.2d 73 (3d Cir.), *cert. denied,*371 U.S. 940, 83 S.Ct. 319, 9 L.Ed.2d 275 (1962); *Oliver v. Home Indem. Co.,*470 F.2d 329 (5th Cir. 1972); Code of Alabama § 12-22-2 (1975).

APPEAL DISMISSED.

BRADLEY and HOLMES, JJ., concur.
# C_2012015EN.01000101.xml

| 18.1.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 15/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.1.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 15/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.6267 — Volkswagen/MAN)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2012/C 15/01

On 26 September 2011, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32011M6267. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32011M6267. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
No. 00-7144.

#### Parsons *v.*Delaney, Acting Secretary of the Air Force.

C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Table 7.  Homeownership Rates by Age of Householder:  First Quarter 2003 and 2002


                              First      First    Standard   Standard
Age of householder           Quarter    Quarter   error on   error on
                              2003       2002r    2003 rate difference

United States..............      68.0       67.8        0.2        0.2

    Under 25 years.........      22.0       22.7        0.5        0.8
    25 to 29 years.........      38.9       39.0        0.6        0.8
    30 to 34 years.........      56.5       54.1        0.5        0.8
    35 to 39 years.........      64.6       65.1        0.5        0.7
    40 to 44 years.........      70.8       71.9        0.4        0.7
    45 to 49 years.........      75.0       74.2        0.4        0.6
    50 to 54 years.........      78.3       77.9        0.4        0.6
    55 to 59 years.........      80.7       81.1        0.4        0.7
    60 to 64 years.........      82.4       80.7        0.5        0.8
    65 to 69 years.........      82.3       83.5        0.5        0.8
    70 to 74 years.........      81.7       83.1        0.6        0.8
    75 years and over......      78.4       78.5        0.4        0.6

      Under 35 years.......      41.7       41.0        0.3        0.5
      35 to 44 years.......      67.8       68.6        0.3        0.5
      45 to 54 years.......      76.5       76.0        0.3        0.5
      55 to 64 years.......      81.4       80.9        0.3        0.5
      65 years and over....      80.2       80.9        0.3        0.4
rRevised
Exhibit 32.1
  
 Certification of the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002(18 U.S.C. 1350)
  In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Century Aluminum Company (the “Company”) for the quarter ended September 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Logan W. Kruger, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Michael A. Bless, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his knowledge:
 
 1.
This 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
 
 /s/ LOGAN W. KRUGER


/s/ MICHAEL A. BLESSBy:
Logan W. Kruger

By:
Michael A. BlessTitle:
Chief Executive Officer

Title:
Chief Financial OfficerDate:
November 9, 2010

Date:
November 9, 2010
  A signed original 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.
Exhibit 32.2

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 Annual Report of Eye Care Centers of America, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Douglas C. Shepard, as Executive Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(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.



|               |  |                                                                        
|-------------- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------
|March 27, 2006 |  | /S/ Douglas C. Shepard                                                 
|               |  | Douglas C. Shepard Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

A SIGNED ORIGINAL OF THIS WRITTEN STATEMENT REQUIRED BY SECTION 906 HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO EYE CARE CENTERS OF
AMERICA, INC. AND WILL BE RETAINED BY EYE CARE CENTERS OF AMERICA, INC. AND FURNISHED TO THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OR ITS STAFF UPON REQUEST.
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-17-00255-CR

LATRICIA TYLER, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

§

§

§

§

§

On Appeal from County Criminal 

Court No. 2

of Tarrant County (1460191)

November 1, 2018

Opinion by Justice Meier

(p)

JUDGMENT

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

was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of the trial 

court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By /s/ Bill Meier 

 Justice Bill Meier
Petition for Exemption 333

Walter L. Pugh

108 Brookwood Drive

Vicksburg Ms.39183

I, Walter Pugh, do hereby submit this petition for exemption under Section 333; FAA 

Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, Public Law 112-95 FEB. 14 2012, Section 333. I request this 

exemption in order to operate my UAV/UAS, DJI Phantom 3 Professional Aircraft, in order to provide 

services for profit to include aerial photography, aerial cinematography, aerial filming and photography 

for farming operations, real estate, and special events to include but not limited to weddings, private or 

public parties/events, business advertising, promotional events.

Background Information

I am the Director of Facilities for Ameristar Casino in Vicksburg, MS. We are located right on the 

Mississippi River. I have worked with this company for 22 years. I was a member of the Warren County 

Volunteer Fire Department and a National Certified first responder for 8 years. I am Prior service 

military and a Gulf War Veteran. I have a small UAV that was registered on 12/29/2015, Certificate 

Number FA3WMTPK77.

Aerial Operations Intention

To be able to provide a service to our community and surrounding area with aerial photography,

for search and rescue, video, farming real estate mapping and surveying. I plan to use the DJI Phantom 

3 Professional UAV (Link for Manual attached) the Phantom 3 is restricted to fly no more than 400 ft. 

Elevation. The UAV will only be flow according to my registration guidelines and will not be flown near 

any airports.

As in Grants of Exemptions Nos. 11062, 11112, and 12645 there is enhanced safety achieved using an 

unmanned aircraft (UA) with the specifications described by the petitioner and carrying no passengers 

or crew, rather than a manned aircraft of significantly greater proportions, carrying crew in addition to 

flammable fuel, gives the FAA good cause to find that the UAS operation enabled by this exemption is in 

the public interest. 

Thank you for your attention in this matter. Please notify Walter L Pugh at leon.pugh@ameristar.com of 

your actions, and or approvals. Thank you, for your interest in this request.

Sincerely,

Walter L. Pugh

From which the exemption is requested: 14 CFR Part 21 subpart H 

14 CFR 45.23 (b) 

14 CFR 61.101 (e) (4), & (5) 

14 CFR 61.113 (a) & (b) 

14 CFR 61.23 (a) & (c) 

14 CFR 91.7 (a) 
14 CFR 91.9 (b) (2) 

14 CFR 91.103 

14 CFR 91.109 

14 CFR 91.119 (c) 

14 CFR 91.121 

14 CFR 91.151 (a) 

14 CFR 91.203 (a)

14 CFR 91.405 (a) 

14 CFR 91.407 (a) 

14 CFR 91.409 (a) 

14 CFR 91.417 (a) 

Manual Link: 

https://dl.djicdn.com/downloads/phantom_3/en/Phantom_3_Professional_User_M 

anual__V1.6.pdf
258 La. 245

#### STATE of Louisiana, Through the DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS v. Arthur M. ALLEN et al.

No. 51249.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 29, 1971.

In re: State of Louisiana, Department of Highways applying for certiorari or writ of review to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of Orleans. 243 So.2d 337.

Writ refused. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal the result is correct.
```

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 184 (Thursday, September 22, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58856-58857]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-24191]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

Application of Jet-A, LLC for Certificate Authority

AGENCY: Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Notice of Order to Show Cause (Order 2011-9-8). Docket DOT-OST-
2010-0120.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Transportation is directing all interested 
persons to show cause why it should issue an order finding Jet-A, LLC 
fit, willing, and able to operate interstate charter air transportation 
of persons, property and mail, using one large aircraft.

DATES: Persons wishing to file objections should do so no later than 
September 28, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Objections and answers to objections should be filed in 
Docket DOT-OST-2010-0120 and addressed to U.S. Department of 
Transportation, Docket Operations, (M-30, Room W12-140), 1200 New 
Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590, 
and should be served upon the parties listed in Attachment A to the 
order.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Catherine J. O'Toole, Air Carrier 
Fitness Division (X-56, Room W86-489), U.S.

[[Page 58857]]

Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, 
DC 20590, (202) 366-9721.

    Dated: September 14, 2011.
Robert Letteney,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs.
[FR Doc. 2011-24191 Filed 9-21-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
```
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.1


                         INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of our report dated 
February 7, 1997 appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Cox
Communications, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 1996, in the following
Registration Statements of Cox Communications, Inc. and to the reference to us
under the heading "Experts" in the Registration Statement on Form S-3:

 
                        Form         File No.    
                        ------       ---------   
                         S-8          33-80993   
                         S-8          33-80995   
                         S-8          33-91506   
                         S-8          33-93148   
                         S-3         333-03351   
                         S-3         333-03766    
 

DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
Atlanta, Georgia
March 27, 1997
News from the Shelby County Mayor’s Office 

Mark H. Luttrell, Jr., Mayor

11th Floor, 160 North Main, Memphis, Tennessee 38103

All news releases can be seen at www.shelbycountytn.gov in the News Release Listing

Public Information Officer: Steve Shular

Steve.shular@shelbycountytn.gov

Office (901) 222-2047, Cell (901) 359-5117, Fax (901) 222-2005

January 31, 2014

County to Submit Air Pollution Alternative to Vehicle Testing Stations

Pollution specialists with the Shelby County Health Department announced today they are 

seeking public comment on an amended plan to improve air quality in Shelby County. The 

amendment is a direct result of the recent closure of four vehicle emissions testing stations 

operated by the City of Memphis. Since vehicles are longer tested in Memphis, health officials 

expect emissions to increase. That has lead county health officials to look for alternative ways to

off-set vehicle pollution levels. 

“We believe the 2011 closure of the Cleo manufacturing plant reduced air pollution enough 

to prevent the need to continue tailpipe testing at the Memphis vehicle inspection stations. 

Our staff has done a lot of work to find a balanced and innovative proposal,” said Shelby 

County Mayor Mark H. Luttrell, Jr.

The Shelby County Health Department will host two public hearings on the amended plan, known 

as the State Implementation Plan (SIP). The first will be in Memphis on Tuesday, March 4, 2014, 

6:00 PM, at the Benjamin Hooks, Jr., Central Public Library at 3030 Poplar Avenue. The second will 

be in Millington on Thursday, March 6, 2014, 6:00 PM, at the Baker Community Center, 7942 

Church Street.

“The public comment period begins today and gives citizens the opportunity to evaluate 

our proposed actions to protect the air quality in Shelby County. We welcome comments,”

said Yvonne Madlock, Director of the Shelby County Health Department.

Copies of the SIP amendment may be viewed during normal business hours (8:00 AM – 4:30 PM)

at the Shelby County Health Department Pollution Control Section at 814 Jefferson near downtown 

Memphis. In addition, a printed copy of the plan is available at the Benjamin L. Hooks Central 

Library. It can also be viewed at http://shelbycountytn.gov/index.aspx?NID=852 or

www.midsouthcleanair.org.

After public comments are received, a final amendment plan will be prepared and sent to the

Tennessee Air Pollution Control Board for review. If approved by that Board, the amendment will 

then go to the Environmental Protection Agency for its review and final decision.

(End of Release)
#### Mildred Diane SHARPS v. Samuel SHARPS, et al.

No. 38530.

Supreme Court of Florida.

June 1969.

Rehearing Denied July 17, 1969.

Certiorari denied without opinion. 219 • So.2d 735.