alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Transportation

###### Federal Aviation Administration

# AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

# ACTION:

Request for public comments.

# SUMMARY:

Notice is being given that the FAA is considering a request from the Town of Houlton to dispose of 4.68 acres of land. The parcel is located within the airport industrial park as is not needed for aeronautical purposes. There is adequate developable area on the airport to meet the future twenty year need for projected activity. The airport will obtain fair market value for the disposal of the land and the income derived from this disposal will be placed in the airport's operation and maintenance funds for the facility.

# DATES:

Comments must be received on or before September 26, 2018.

# ADDRESSES:

You may send comments using any of the following methods:
      -  Federal eRulemaking Portal:                          Go to                          http://www.regulations.gov,                          and follow the instructions on providing comments.                    
      -  Fax:                          202-493-2251.                    
      -  Mail:                          U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W 12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.                    
      -  Hand Delivery:                          Deliver to mail address above between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.                    

                        Interested persons may inspect the request and supporting documents by contacting the FAA at the address listed under                         **FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT**                        .                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. Jorge E. Panteli, Compliance and Land Use Specialist, Federal Aviation Administration New England Region Airports Division, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, Massachusetts 01803. Telephone: 781-238-7618.

Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts on November 20, 2017.

Gail Lattrell,

Acting Director, ANE-600.

[FR Doc. 2018-18512 Filed 8-24-18; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

**____________** No. 23 - 50851 Summary Calendar

**____________ United States of America,**  Plaintiff
— Appellee **,** versus **Alejandro Aguilar -**  **Sanchez,** Defendant
— Appellant **.**

**______________________________** Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 2:21 - CR - 42 - 1

**______________________________** Before **Higginbotham, Jones,** and **Oldham,** Circuit Judges **. Per Curiam**  **:** ***** The attorney appointed to represent Alejandro Aguilar - Sanchez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Aguilar - Sanchez has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We

**_____________________** * This opinion is not designated for publication. See **5th Cir .**  **R .**  47.5. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED September 23, 2024 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 23-50851 Document: 59-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/23/2024No. 23 - 50851

2 concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is **GRANTED** , counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the appeal is **DISMISSED** . See **5th Cir. R.** 42.2 . Case: 23-50851 Document: 59-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/23/2024
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
December 31, 1998, Form 10-K and is qualified in its entirety by reference
to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>  1000
       
<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                  DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                                  0
<SECURITIES>                                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  42,225,439
<ALLOWANCES>                                            0
<INVENTORY>                                             0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                3,675,439
<PP&E>                                                  0
<DEPRECIATION>                                          0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 45,225,439
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           3,675,439
<BONDS>                                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                             0
<COMMON>                                                0
<OTHER-SE>                                     41,550,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   45,225,439
<SALES>                                                 0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                3,770,580
<CGS>                                                   0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                           0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   96,580
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              3,674,000        
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                         0
<INCOME-TAX>                                            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                     0
<DISCONTINUED>                                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0
<CHANGES>                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                            0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                           0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                           0
        


</TABLE>
```

[Federal Register: September 8, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 173)]
[Notices]               
[Page 54692]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr08se10-138]                         

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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 7157]

 
Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition 
Determinations: ``Mir[oacute]: The Dutch Interiors''

ACTION: Notice, correction.

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

SUMMARY: On August 11, 2010, notice was published on page 48736 of the 
Federal Register (volume 75, number 154) of determination made by the 
Department of State pertaining to the exhibit ''Mir[oacute]: The Dutch 
Interiors.'' The reference notice is corrected to accommodate an 
additional object to be included in the exhibition. Pursuant to the 
authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 
U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign 
Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681, et seq.; 
22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of Authority No. 234 of 
October 1, 1999, and Delegation of Authority No. 236-3 of August 28, 
2000, I hereby determine that the additional object to be included in 
the exhibition ``Mir[oacute]: The Dutch Interiors,'' imported from 
abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, is of 
cultural significance. The additional object is imported pursuant to a 
loan agreement with the foreign owner or custodian. I also determine 
that the exhibition or display of the additional exhibit object at The 
Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, NY, from on or about October 4, 
2010, until on or about January 17, 2011, and at possible additional 
exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is in the national 
interest. I have ordered that Public Notice of these Determinations be 
published in the Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, including a 
list of the additional exhibit object, contact Julie Simpson, Attorney-
Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State 
(telephone: 202-632-6467). The mailing address is U.S. Department of 
State, SA-5, L/PD, Fifth Floor (Suite 5H03), Washington, DC 20522-0505.

    Dated: September 1, 2010.
Ann Stock,
Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, 
Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2010-22358 Filed 9-7-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
```
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

JACKSON ALEXANDER, 

Appellant, 

v.

Case No. 5D22-2306

LT Case No. 2016-CF-0063-A 

STATE OF FLORIDA, 

Appellee. 

________________________________/

Opinion filed December 30, 2022 

3.800 Appeal from the Circuit Court

for Seminole County, 

Melissa Souto, Judge.

Jackson Alexander, Florida City, pro se.

No Appearance for Appellee.

PER CURIAM. 

This court previously affirmed the trial court’s order(s) denying 

Appellant’s motion for postconviction relief in Seminole County Circuit Court 

Case No. 2016-CF-0063-A. Because it appears that Appellant’s 

postconviction filings are abusive, repetitive, malicious, or frivolous, 
2

Appellant is cautioned that any further pro se filings in this court asserting 

claims stemming from Seminole County Circuit Court Case No. 2016-CF0063-A may result in sanctions such as a bar on pro se filings in this court 

and referral to prison officials for disciplinary proceedings, which may include 

forfeiture of gain time. See § 944.279(1), Fla. Stat. (2019); State v. Spencer, 

751 So. 2d 47, 48 (Fla. 1999).

APPELLANT CAUTIONED.

LAMBERT, C.J., WALLIS, and EISNAUGLE, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>


                                                                  EXHIBIT 23.1


                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-8 of NetZero, Inc. of our report dated August 9, 2000
relating to the financial statements, which appears in this Annual Report on
Form 10-K. We also consent to the incorporation by reference of our report dated
August 9, 2000 relating to the financial statement schedule, which appears in
this Annual Report on Form 10-K.



/s/ PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP

Woodland Hills, California
September 27, 2000
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>   5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
December 31, 1999, Form 10-K and is qualified in its entirety by reference
to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>  1000

<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                  DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                                  0
<SECURITIES>                                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  42,707,204
<ALLOWANCES>                                            0
<INVENTORY>                                             0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                3,837,204
<PP&E>                                                  0
<DEPRECIATION>                                          0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 42,707,204
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           3,837,204
<BONDS>                                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                             0
<COMMON>                                                0
<OTHER-SE>                                     38,870,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   42,707,204
<SALES>                                                 0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                3,702,345
<CGS>                                                   0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                           0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   94,832
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              3,607,513
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                         0
<INCOME-TAX>                                            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                     0
<DISCONTINUED>                                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0
<CHANGES>                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                            0
<EPS-BASIC>                                           0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                           0



</TABLE>
#### Bee, Inc. *v.*Reading Coach Co., Appellant.

December 18, 1934:

Pee Ctjbiam,

It was agreed between the parties that the same judgment should be entered in this case as was entered in Bachman v. Reading Coach Company, to No. 327 October Term, 1934. Both cases arose from the same accident.

The judgment is accordingly affirmed.
#### Daniel D. MORAN and Gregg S. Moran, Appellants, v. Ruth E. STEPHENS, joined by her husband, Edward Stephens, Appellees.

No. 71-223.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

March 29, 1972.

Rehearing Denied Aug. 25, 1972.

*380Robert M. Montgomery, Jr., and Thomas A. Hoadley, of Howell, Kirby, Montgomery, D’Aiuto, Dean & Hallowes, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Harry Lee Anstead, of Simpson & An-stead, West Palm Beach, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

A dog bit a wife. Based on jury verdict, she received judgment from the dog owners for compensatory and punitive damages. In addition, her husband in his derivative claim received compensatory *and*punitive damages.

We have examined the several points on appeal in light of the record, arguments and briefs, and find no merit or need for discussion, except for the appellants’ Point IV. It challenges on behalf of the dog owners the award of $5,000 as punitive damages to the husband. We are persuaded that this was fundamentally an impermissible award and reverse upon authority of Martin v. Story, Fla.App.1957, 97 So.2d 343; Hughey v. Ausborn, 1967, 249 S.C. 470, 154 S.E.2d 839; and Fleming Oil Co. v. Watts, Tex.Civ.App.1946, 193 S.W.2d 979. See also generally, 25 A.L.R.3d 1416, Anno., Punitive Damages — Spouse or Parent, and for encyclopedic treatment 22 Am.Jur.2d, Damages, § 254 and 41 Am. Jur.2d, Husband and Wife, § 455.

We remand with directions to enter judgment in favor of the defendants as concerns the award of punitive damages in the sum of $5000 to the husband, Edward Stephens. The judgment is otherwise affirmed.

Affirmed in part; reversed in part, with directions.

WALDEN and CROSS, JJ., and JOHNSON, CLARENCE T., Associate Judge, concur.
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. 

# Wniteb**~tate~** 

# <tourtof**~peaI~** 

# fortbe jf

# eberaI (!Circuit
IN RE CITY OF HOUSTON 2012-1356 (Serial No. 77/660,948) Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. 

### ON MOTION

ORDER The City of Houston moves without opposition for a 50-day extension oftime, until December 14, 2012, to file its reply brief. Upon consideration thereof, IT Is ORDERED THAT: The motion is granted. Case: 12-1356 Document: 31 Page: 1 Filed: 10/23/2012IN RE CITY OF HOUSTON



### s27 FOR THE COURT /s/Jan Horbaly Jan Horbaly Clerk 2 Case: 12-1356 Document: 31 Page: 2 Filed: 10/23/2012
From: cneufeld [mailto:cneufeld@bmi.net] 

Sent: Monday, March 10, 2014 11:22 AM

To: Wood, Gil

Subject: RE: Catalyst timeline for BlazeKing Apex?

Gil:

It's fine for the docket.

Chris

From: Wood, Gil [mailto:Wood.Gil@epa.gov] 

Sent: Monday, March 10, 2014 5:38 AM

To: cneufeld@bmi.net

Cc: Cole, David

Subject: RE: Catalyst timeline for BlazeKing Apex?

Hi Chris,

Thank you for your prompt response. Is this okay for the docket? I don’t see any CBI...

Gil

From: cneufeld@bmi.net [mailto:cneufeld@bmi.net] 

Sent: Friday, March 07, 2014 10:14 PM

To: Wood, Gil

Subject: Re: Catalyst timeline for BlazeKing Apex?

see below

On Mar 7, 2014, at 9:40 AM, "Wood, Gil" <Wood.Gil@epa.gov> wrote:

Hi Chris,

What is the typical catalyst replacment timeline for the BlazeKing Apex furnace? We have 

been offering the 3 years 100%, plus 3 year prorated warranty. However, our supplier has 

approved the same 10 year, 100% voluntary warranty we are offering on our wood stoves and 

inserts. We have an exceptionally low warranty rate and expect consumers to see a 10 year life 

span out of their combustors.

Replacement cost? As stated in Boston, Blaze King has asked our suppliers to sell direct to 

consumer. This has eliminated cost increases from multistep sales. The combustor is available 

on line for less than $265.00

Is the catalyst larger, or special material? It is the same dimensional combustor as we use in 

our King wood stove model. However, we supply the Dura Foil stainless steel combustor as it is 

proven to tolerate higher temperatures.

Does it have special cleaning recommendations/features? Blaze King recommends consumers 

use the low burn rate with a full fire box of wood. Combustor temps are elevated as residence 

time is increased and temperatures are high enough to breakdown any build up. If additional 

cleaning is required, we suggest the removal and then cleaning with a 50/50 mix of distilled 
water and vinegar. The acid nature eats away at the organic build up and rejuvenates the 

combustor. We also have designed all our units to be "tool free" for inspection, maintenance 

and service.

Thanks,

You are most welcome.

Chris
I

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3867

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide that a foster

care provider and a qualified foster individual may share the same home.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 11, 1994

Mr. SWETT introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee

on Ways and Means

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide

that a foster care provider and a qualified foster individual may share the same home.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Foster Care Living

5 Arrangements Act of 1994’’.

6 SEC. 2. FOSTER CARE LIVING ARRANGEMENTS.

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 131(b)(1) of the Internal

8 Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end

9 the following new sentence: ‘‘For purposes of this section,

10 the foster care provider’s home shall include shared living
2

•HR 3867 IH

1 arrangements in which the qualified foster individual owns

2 or leases the home in which the foster care provider prin3 cipally resides.’’.

4 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by

5 subsection (a) shall take effect on the date of the enact6 ment of this Act.

Æ
**EXHIBIT 23.2**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

To the Board of Directors

BMB Munai, Inc.

 

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-3 (No. 333-146831) of BMB Munai, Inc. of our report dated June 10, 2009, except for Note 2, as to which the date is October 20, 2009 (including our report dated June 10, 2009 regarding the effectiveness of BMB Munai, Inc.’s internal control over financial reporting as of March 31, 2009) relating to the            financial statements and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which appears in this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A-2 for the year ended March 31, 2009.

 

|   | /s/ Hansen, Barnett & Maxwell, P.C. |
|--------|-----------------------------------------|

|   | **HANSEN, BARNETT & MAXWELL, P.C.** |
|--------|-----------------------------------------|

 

Salt Lake City, Utah

November 11, 2009
#### A. Jerry SLOCUM et al. v. HUMBLE PIPELINE COMPANY.

No. 54202.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 19, 1973.

In re: A. Jerry Slocum, Gwin LeBlanc and J. Harrison Henderson, III applying for Certiorari, or Writ of Review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of Rapides, 284 So.2d 101.

Writ denied. No error of law.
IN THE 

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS 

No. 10-14-00110-CR 

BRANDON VASHUN HOUSE, 

 Appellant 

 v. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, 

 Appellee 

From the 12th District Court 

Walker County, Texas 

Trial Court No. 26,018 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Appellant Brandon Vashun House has filed a “Withdrawal of Notice of Appeal” 

in which he states that he “respectfully moves this Court to withdraw Defendant’s 

Notice of Appeal and to dismiss the appeal.” We have no authority under Rule of 

Appellate Procedure 42.2 to “withdraw Defendant’s Notice of Appeal”; therefore, we 

construe House’s motion as a motion to voluntarily dismiss his appeal. See TEX. R. APP.

P. 42.2(a). We have not issued a decision in this appeal, and House personally signed 

the motion. The motion is granted, and the appeal is dismissed. 
House v. State Page 2 

REX D. DAVIS 

Justice 

Before Chief Justice Gray, 

Justice Davis, and 

Justice Scoggins 

Appeal dismissed 

Opinion delivered and filed December 31, 2014 

Do not publish 

[CR25]
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

PETER MANUEL CANDELARIA

,

Appellant

,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

,

State

. §

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 20

- 000 10

- C R

Appeal from the

118 th D istrict Court

of Howard County , Texas

(TC# 1 555 9 )

O R D E R

The Court GRANTS the Appellant’ s third m otion for extension of time within which to

file the brief until May 12 , 2020

. NO FURTHER MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO

F ILE THE APPELLANT’S BR IEF WILL BE CONSIDERED BY THIS COURT.

It is further ORDERED that the Hon. Rick Dunbar

, Appellant’s attorney, prepare the

Appellant’s brief and forward the same to this Court on or before May 12 , 20 20

.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 14 th day of April , 20 20

.

PER CURIAM

Before Alley , C.J., R odriguez and Palafox , JJ.