alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## u.s. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIONR

# ECE.I 

# v ED OFFICE OF HEARINGS FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

## SEP 302014 

## HEARING DOCKET
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, Complainant,
VS. AIRBORNE MAINTENANCE AND ENGINEERING SERVICES, Respondent. DocketNo. FAA-2013-0291 FAA Case No. 20IIS0290032
Judge Sullivan

MOTIONFOREXTENSION OF TIME FORDISCOVERY Pursuant to the agreement of the parties, and the Order of the Judge, fact witness depositions in this case are scheduled to be completed by September 30, 2014. However, at this time there still remain multiple depositions to be taken by both sides, and it is not possible for those depositions to be completed by the end ofthe fact witness deposition period. Accordingly, the FAA requests an extension of the discovery period so that the parties can complete these depositions. Respondent has declined to agree to join in a request for an extension oftime, and Respondent and the FAA have been unable to reach agreement on a schedule such that some of the remaining depositions couldbe conducted by the end ofSeptember 2014, with the remainder already scheduled, such that the parties could suggest particular adjustments to the existing litigation schedule. As a result, the FAA anticipates that between the parties will still need to conduct five depositions in three different states,1 and that the extension oftime required would

1Respondent seeks to depose three FAA inspectors, and the FAA seeks a corporate deposition ofRespondent and an individual deposition ofone ofRespondent's managers.be a minimum of 30 days. The FAA anticipates that an extension ofthis length could not be accommodated inthe existing litigation schedule. WHEREFORE, the FAA respectfully requests that the Judge grant an extension ofthe fact witness deposition period, and instruct the parties tojointly submit a new proposed litigation schedule for this case. Respectfully submitted this'Zl day ofSeptember, 2014.

CHRISTOPHER STEVENSON Attorney Office ofthe Regional CounselCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that the foregoing FAA'sMotionfor Extension ofTime for Discovery was sent: original and one copy via certified mail to: Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2Wl000
one copy via certified mail and facsimile to: The Honorable J.E. Sullivan Administrative LawJudge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE (Ell-310) Washington, DC 20590 facsimile: (202) 366-7536 Robert P. Silverberg, Esq. 1101 30'h Street, NW, Suite 120 Washington, D.C. 20007 Facsimile: (202) 944-3306

# ~ flruillcAA 

# DONNASTANLEY 

## I Legal Assistant Office ofthe Regional Counsel


### Sl:P 2 5 2014 Dated
<PAGE>

                                   EXHIBIT 23

                                 TO FORM 10-K OF
                           SEA PINES ASSOCIATES, INC.

                         Consent of Independent Auditors

         We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement on Form S-8, filed on June 18, 2001, pertaining to the Director Stock
Compensation Plan and the Deferred Issuance Stock Plan of Sea Pines Associates,
Inc. of our report dated December 6, 2002, with respect to the consolidated
financial statements of Sea Pines Associates, Inc. included in its Annual Report
(Form 10-K) for the year ended October 31, 2002.

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP
January 13, 2003
1 The Honorable Robert T. Dawson, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendation of the Honorable Beverly Stites Jones, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 99-3075

___________ Chad Allen Beers, * * Appellant, * * v. * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Jimm L. Hendren, Judge; Michael * Western District of Arkansas. Bradley; Bill Reynolds; John Doe #1; * John Doe #2, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: October 6, 1999 Filed: October 12, 1999

___________ Before BEAM, LOKEN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. ChadAllen Beers appeals from the district court’s 1 order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against a federal judge, Mr. Beers’s two defense counsel, and two-2-

John Does. After careful review of the record, we conclude dismissal was warranted under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) because Mr. Beers’s allegations failed to state a conspiracy claim. See Snelling v. Westhoff, 972 F.2d 199, 200 (8th Cir. 1992) (per curiam) (mere allegations of conspiracy without specific facts showing meeting of minds do not state claim). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47A(a). A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH

	NO. 2-07-271-CR

BILLY J. SWANSON	APPELLANT

	V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS	STATE

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

	FROM THE 213TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

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

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1

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

	A jury convicted Appellant Billy J. Swanson of delivery of less than one gram of cocaine and, after Swanson pleaded true to the enhancement paragraphs contained in the indictment, assessed punishment at eight and a half years’ confinement.  The trial court sentenced him accordingly.  

	Swanson’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw as counsel and a brief in support of that motion.  Counsel’s brief and motion meet the requirements of Anders v. California2 by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds for relief.  Swanson has filed a pro se brief in which he enumerates six potential sources of error.  In addition, the State has filed a letter brief.

	As the reviewing court, we must conduct an independent evaluation of the record to determine whether counsel is correct in determining that the appeal is frivolous.  See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); Mays v. State, 904 S.W.2d 920, 923 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1995, no pet.).  Only then may we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.  See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 82–83, 109 S. Ct. 346, 351 (1988). 

	We have carefully reviewed the record, counsel’s brief, Swanson’s pro se brief, and the State’s brief.  We agree that the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit.  We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal.  See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).  We therefore grant the motion to withdraw filed by Swanson’s counsel and affirm the trial court’s judgment.

								SUE WALKER

								JUSTICE

PANEL: CAYCE, C.J.; LIVINGSTON and WALKER, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: February 19, 2009
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-41173 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus MIGUEL GARCIA-COVARUBIAS, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. B:97-CR-232-1

- - - - - - - - - - February 11, 1998 Before SMITH, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Appellant Miguel Garcia-Covarubias appeals his conviction and sentence for illegal re-entry following deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(2). Garcia-Covarubias argues that he was sentenced under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) for a prior aggravated felony conviction and since he was charged and pleaded guilty to the elements of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), the Government should have alleged the prior aggravated felony in the indictment. His argument is foreclosed by this court’s opinionNo. 97-41173 -2- in United States v. Vasquez-Olvera , 999 F.2d 943, 946-47 (5th Cir. 1993).
AFFIRMED.
50594.

#### WOODS v. THE STATE.

Deen, Presiding Judge.

The defendant, a prison inmate, was indicted and convicted of aggravated assault as a result of having attempted to stab a prison employee who was taking him to the hospital section because of a cut on his head from unknown causes. He had concealed a seven-inch pointed steel nail or spike on his person, and suddenly drew it out and attempted to stab the witness with it.

The defendant testified that he blacked out in his cell, fell, cut his forehead, and on being taken to the hospital again blacked out in the elevator and had no recollection of subsequent events. This was contradicted by a witness who said he was conscious and belligerent at all times. Whether he was being taken to the psychotic ward for mental or security reasons was an issue in the case which the jury decided against the contentions of the defendant that he had "blanked out” and had no intent to commit the act. It follows that the motion for new trial on the general grounds only was properly overruled. While this is not strictly speaking an "insanity defense,” it has some resemblance to the defense interposed in *Ross v. State,*217 Ga. 569 (124 SE2d 280), where the defendant was in fact mentally abnormal, and where he contended he had no knowledge of what he was doing at the time of the attack. "However, mental abnormality is not a defense unless the accused was, at the time of the commission of the offense, mentally irresponsible under the test recognized by law in this State.” Id., p. 577. It is *727obvious that the jury here did not believe the explanation of the defendant as to his state of mind.

Submitted April 29, 1975

Decided May 8, 1975.

*Carroll L. Cowart,*for appellant.

*John*IT. *Underwood, District Attorney, Dupont K. Cheney, Assistant District Attorney,*for appellee.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Evans and Stolz, JJ., concur.*
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-6614

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

CLIFFORD DOUGLAS DOWE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (CR-94-275, CA-97-699-AM)

Submitted: August 13, 1998 Decided: September 3, 1998

Before WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Clifford Douglas Dowe, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas More Hollenhorst,

Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying

his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A.§ 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998).

We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district

court. United States v. Dowe, Nos. CR-94-275; CA-97-699-AM (E.D.

Va. Feb. 23, 1998). We dispense with oral argument because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

DISMISSED
Exhibit 99.1

                            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 on Form 10-K/A of Main Street and Main
Incorporated (the "Company") for the year ended December 30, 2002, as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
Bart A. Brown, Jr., Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 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 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and

(2)  The information  contained in the Report fairly  presents,  in all material
     respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

MAIN STREET AND MAIN INCORPORATED


/s/ Bart A. Brown, Jr.
--------------------------------------------
Bart A. Brown, Jr.
Chief Executive Officer

Date:  May 6, 2003






A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided  to Main  Street and Main  Incorporated  and will be  retained  by Main
Street and Main  Incorporated  and  furnished  to the  Securities  and  Exchange
Commission and its staff upon request.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 110 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 110

    Designating June 5, 1999, as ``National Race for the Cure Day''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 27, 1999

Mrs. Hutchison (for herself, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Lott, Mr. Daschle, Mr. 
Mack, Mr. Domenici, Mr. Abraham, Mr. Ashcroft, Mr. Bayh, Mr. Bingaman, 
    Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Breaux, Mr. Bryan, Mr. Bunning, Mr. Burns, Mr. 
Campbell, Ms. Collins, Mr. DeWine, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Gorton, Mr. Gramm, Mr. 
Grassley, Mr. Helms, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Kerry, Ms. Landrieu, 
 Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Levin, Mrs. Lincoln, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Moynihan, 
   Mr. Murkowski, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Nickles, Mr. Reid, Mr. Robb, Mr. 
Sarbanes, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Smith of Oregon, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Stevens, Mr. 
   Thomas, Mr. Thompson, Mr. Torricelli, Mr. Warner, Mr. Wyden, Mr. 
    Baucus, Mr. Brownback, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Roth, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. 
   Wellstone, Mr. Allard, Mr. Biden, and Mr. Edwards) submitted the 
        following resolution; which was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
    Designating June 5, 1999, as ``National Race for the Cure Day''.

Whereas breast cancer is the leading cause of death for women between the ages 
        of 35 and 54;
Whereas every 3 minutes a woman will be diagnosed with breast cancer and every 
        12 minutes a woman will die of breast cancer;
Whereas the Komen National Race for the Cure is celebrating its 10th Anniversary 
        during 1999;
Whereas the Komen National Race for the Cure Series, an event of the Susan G. 
        Komen Breast Cancer Foundation, is the largest series of 5 kilometer 
        races in the world;
Whereas there will be 98 Komen National Race for the Cure events throughout the 
        United States during 1999; and
Whereas the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation and the Komen National Race 
        for the Cure Series have raised an estimated $136,000,000 to further the 
        mission of eradicating breast cancer as a life-threatening disease by 
        advancing research, education, screening, and treatment: Now, therefore, 
        be it
    Resolved,

SECTION 1. COMMEMORATION AND DESIGNATION.

    The Senate--
            (1) commemorates the 10th Anniversary of the National Race 
        for the Cure;
            (2) designates June 5, 1999, as ``National Race for the 
        Cure Day''; and
            (3) requests that the President issue a proclamation 
        calling upon the people of the United States to observe the day 
        with appropriate programs and activities.
                                 <all>
```
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Billie A. GREEN.

No. 87-K-2496.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 12, 1988.

In re Green, Billie A.; applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. KA87 0140; Parish of East Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court, Div. “J”, No. 7-84-103.

Granted. Relator’s sentence is reduced to the original five years.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

March 27 , 2018

No. 04

- 18

- 00189

- CV

IN RE ASCENSION PROJ ECT, INC.

, AMK II Managing Member LLC, and AV Managing Member, LLC

Original Mandamus Proceeding 1

ORDER

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez , Justice

Irene Rios , Justice

On March 26, relators filed a petition for writ of mandamus and an emergency motion for temporary relief pending mandamus. This court believes a serious question concerning the mandamus relief sought requires further consideration. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 52.8(b). The respondent and the real part y in interest may file a response to the petition for writ of mand amus in this court no later than April 12, 2018. Any such response must conform to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.4.

Relators’ request for temporary relief is GRANTED. The trial court’s March 12, 2018 ‘Order” and the trial court’s March 21, 2018 “Order on Defendants/Counter

- Plaintiffs, Ascension Project, Inc., AMK Managing Member, LLC and AV Managing Member, LLC’s Expedited Motion to Stay and Motion for Reconsideration” are both STAYED pending final resolution of the petition for writ of mandamus

.

It is so ORDERED on March 27, 2018

. 

### PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO:

_________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2017

- CI

- 07629 , styled David Meaden v. Ascension Commercial Real
Estate, L.P.; et al. , pending in the 37th Judicial District Court

, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Angelica

Jimenez presiding.
# -- I 12/12/2003 13:59 FAX 415 896 2450 

# rn 012 

## 1 .



## a

ri wP 0 .I= 

# 3 a .K
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 Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

                    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial                           ( print page 17081)                        property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.                

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Special Emphasis Panel; Mentored Patient-Oriented Research Career Development Application.                    

*Date:*                         April 19, 2012.                    

*Time:*                         6 p.m. to 8 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, 6100 Executive Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20852 (Telephone Conference Call).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Anne Krey, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Division of Scientific Review, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, NIH, 6100 Executive Blvd., Room 5B01, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-6908,                         *ak41o@nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.864, Population Research; 93.865, Research for Mothers and Children; 93.929, Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research; 93.209, Contraception and Infertility Loan Repayment Program, National Institutes of Health, HHS) 

Dated: March 19, 2012.

Jennifer S. Spaeth,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2012-7091 Filed 3-22-12; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
The Valley Air District covers eight counties including San J oaquin, Stanislaus, Merced, Madera, Fresno, Kings, Tulare and the Valley air basin portion of Kern. Visit www.valleyair.org to learn more.



# News Release

**For immediate release**
**DATE 8-25-10**
**For: local news, business and assignment editors**  North District Media Contact - Modesto Anthony Presto (209) 557-6400
Central District Media Contact - Fresno Jaime Holt (559) 230-5850
South District Media Contact - Bakersfield Brenda Turner (661) 392-5500 Spanish language Media Contact Claudia Encinas (559) 230-5851


# Air District offers charbroiler retrofits incentives

In order to reduce harmful emissions result ing from charbroiling meat, the Valley Air District is offering new funding to re trofit commercial charbroilers.

The Char broiler Incentive Program (CHIP) opens today and will take applications for eight weeks for a total of $500,000 in funding . This new program is part of the Air District’s efforts to advance new emission reduction technologies at sources throughout the Valley.

“Because of the challenges we face in the Valle y to attaining clean air, we are looking at all emission sources, and commercial charbr oilers are one of those sources,” said Samir Sheikh, the director of the Strategies and Incentives Program, which offers the funding.

Commercial under-fired charbroilers emit particulate matter and volatile organic compounds, two categories of pollutant that have harmful health effects.

The Air District estimates five to 10 projects will be funded. Eligibi lity criteria include:

 Retrofit devices must reduce VOC em issions by 86 percent and particulate matter 10 microns and under (PM10) by 83 percent.

 Targeted devices include:

o HEPA filtration system

o Electrostatic precipitator

o Wet scrubber

o Thermal oxidizer

-more-Charbroiler incentives available 8-25-10 Page 2 of 2

The Valley Air District covers eight counties including San J oaquin, Stanislaus, Merced, Madera, Fresno, Kings, Tulare and the Valley air basin portion of Kern. Visit www.valleyair.org to learn more. The maximum eligible amount per project will be determined by calculating cost effectiveness. Consideration will be given to restaurant size and the type of control device implemented.

For more information on the program, visit http://www.valleyair.org/Grant _Programs/GrantPrograms.htm

. For more information about the Valley Air Distr ict, call a regional office: in Fresno, 559- 230-6000; in Bakersfield, 661-392- 5500; and in Modesto, 209-557-6400.