alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
SERVED: DECEMBER 29, 2015 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGSWASHINGTON, DC InThe Matter Of: HORTMAN AVIATION SERVICES, INC. Respondent )))))) Docket No. FAA-2015-0635 Case No. 2010EA170043 ORDER GRANTING FAA MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME On December4, 2015, an Order Setting Deadlines forthe Respondent toFile Explanation and Updated Contact List, and forthe FAA toFilea Motion For Default was filed. On December 22, 2015 the FAA filed the Agency's Request fora 15-Day Extension of Time toFilea Default Motion. Pursuant to14 C.F.R. §§ 13.205; 13.220; and Civ. R.55, and after reviewing all relevant case law, regulations, statutory authority, and being fully advised;

ITIS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. The FAA's Motion for Extension is granted. 2. January 15,2016 Motion Deadline: The FAA's deadline tofilea Motion for Default is extended from December 31,2015 to January 15,2016. Attachment: Service List Judgu.s.SERVICE LIST- BY U.S. MAIL ORIGINAL & ONE COPY Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1 000 1 Mr. Zachary M. Berman Complainant's Counsel Federal Aviation Administration ·

Office ofthe Chief Counsel Enforcement Division, Northeast Team 1 Aviation Plaza Jamaica, NY 11434 TEL: 718-553-3258 FAJ<: 718-995-5699

Mr. H.M. Hortman, President Hortman Aviation Services, Inc. Respondent9800 Ashton Road Philadelphia, PA 19114 TEL: 215-969-0311 FAX: 215-677-6408 Judge J.E. Sullivan

US. Administrative Law Judge Office of Hearings, M-20

U.S. Department of Transportation ONE COPY 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (E11-310) Washington, DC 20590 TEL: 202-366-6941 FAJ<: 202-366-7536 1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person orby expedited courier, use the following address: Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1000, Washington, DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.
#### In the Matter of Emmuel J. BYINGTON a/k/a Emmuel Julius Byington.

No. H-81-217.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

June 8, 1981.

ORDER DENYING WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

The petitioner has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus requesting this Court to order his release on appellate bond. He alleges that the District Court of Pottawatomie County improperly refused to allow an appeal bond in Pottawatomie County Case No. CRF-80-318, in which he was convicted of Driving While Under the Influence of Intoxicating Liquor, Second or *326Subsequent Offense, and sentenced to five (5) years in prison.

Under 22 O.S.1971, § 1077, bail in this case was in the discretion of the trial court. The State alleges that the district court denied bond for the reasons that this is the petitioner’s sixth conviction for driving under the influence and that he represents a serious and continuing threat to the public safety. These are cogent reasons for the denial of bond, and the petitioner does not show that the district judge abused his discretion in denying appellate bond.

IT IS THEREFORE THE ORDER OF THIS COURT that the petition for writ of habeas corpus should be, and hereby is, denied.

WITNESS OUR HANDS AND THE SEAL OF THIS COURT this 8th day of June, 1981.

TOM BRETT, P. J.

HEZ J. BUSSEY, J.

TOM R. CORNISH, J.
Continued on next page

USDA Cattle & Carcass Training Center Training Event Agenda

Technology and CME Cattle 

& Carcass Acceptance 

Location: University of Nebraska - Lincoln 

Loeffel Meat Science Laboratory

Thursday, June 15, 2023: 

• 12:00 – 12:15: Introduction 

• 12:15 – 1:30: Animal Growth and Development 101 

 Dr. Ty Schmidt, Associate Professor, UNL Department of Animal Science 

• 1:30 – 1:45: Break 

• 1:45 – 2:30: Live Cattle Evaluation 101 

 Lonnie Peetz and Tom Walthers, USDA Market News 

• 2:30 – 2:45: Break 

• 2:45 – 4:15: CME Live Cattle Rulebook

 CME Q&A Session – Makenzie Billings and Anne Krema, The CME Group 

 Carcass Delivery Overview – Joe Barksdale, USDA Quality Assessment Division 

 Live Cattle Delivery Overview – Lonnie Peetz and Tom Walthers, USDA Market News 

• 4:15 – 5:30: Live Cattle Evaluation Contest

• 5:30 – 6:00: Q&A Session and Networking 

• 6:00 – 8:00: Dinner with Industry Panel 
Agricultural Marketing Service

Friday, June 16, 2023: 

• 8:00 – 8:15: Recap of Previous Day

• 8:15 – 8:45: Beef Grading 101 (quality and yield) 

 Dr. Jessie Morrill, Assistant Professor, UNL Department of Animal Science

• 8:45 – 9:00: Break/Group Assignment

• 9:00 – 9:30: USDA Standards and Specification Division & Quality Assessment Division

 Red Group: USDA Quality Assessment Division

 Black Group: Camera Grading Demonstration

• 9:30 – 10:00: USDA Standards and Specification Division & Quality Assessment Division

 Red Group: Camera Grading Demonstration

 Black Group: USDA Quality Assessment Division

• 10:00 – 10:45: Current and Future Technology in the Livestock Industry (Elanco)

• 10:45 – 11:30: Current and Future Technology in the Meat Industry (Volur)

• 11:30 – 12:15: Application of Computer Vision and Machine Learning in the Meat Industry (Marble 

Technologies) 

• 12:15 – 12:30: Wrap up & Adjourn 

Other events:

Friday, June 16, 2023:

Onsite Technical Assistance Event: 

• 1:00 – 2:00: USDA Support for Diversified Meat and Poultry Supply Chains 

 Sara Hernandez, Coordinator, USDA Meat & Poultry Processing Technical Assistance (MPPTA) 

• 2:00 – 4:00: MPPTA Introduction and Networking 

 Processors can visit one-on-one with Technical Assistance Providers 

Friday, June 16, 2023:

Onsite Cattle Contract Library Pilot Program Listening Session: 

(in-person or virtually)

• 1:00 - 3:00 pm CT: USDA Cattle Contract Library Pilot Program Overview and Q&A

• During the session, AMS will provide an overview of the current Pilot, then participants will be given an 

opportunity to share their feedback. Attendees may participate in-person (seating limited to 80) or 

virtually. For virtual attendees, the meeting will be broadcasted live as a webinar. To join from a PC, 

Mac, iPad, iPhone or Android device, please join via Zoom. Registration is not required. Attendees will 

be permitted to submit Q&A via Zoom meeting. The event will be recorded to be posted later.

May 2023 / www.ams.usda.gov 

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.
# C_2004094EN.01006602.xml

| 17.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 94/66 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/66

---

Removal from the register of Case T-281/97 (1)

1

(2004/C 94/164)

Language of the Case: English

Language of the Case: English

By order of 30 January 2004 the President of the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case T-281/97:Milk Products Holdings (Europe) Limited and Others v Commission of the European Communities.

---

(1)  OJ C 387 of 20.12.1997.

1

---
**Exhibit      32.1**

**Certification      Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

|  | 1. | The                Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)                of                the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,                and |
|--|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|  | 2. | The                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material                respects, the financial conditions and results of operations of                Registrant. |
|--|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                    |                                                                    |                                                  |
|-----------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------|
|                               |                                                               |                                             |
| Dated:                November 14, 2007 |                                                                    | /s/ Howard                B.                Katz |
|                                    | Howard                  B. KatzChief                  Executive Officer |

----
In the Court of Criminal 

Appeals of Texas

══════════

No. WR-92,376-02

══════════

EX PARTE OSCEAS CANTU,

Applicant

═══════════════════════════════════════

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 2015-DCR-00691-C IN THE 197th DISTRICT

COURT

FROM CAMERON COUNTY

═══════════════════════════════════════

YEARY, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which SLAUGHTER, J., 

joined.

Applicant was convicted in 2015 of Continuous Sexual Abuse of a 

Child and sentenced to 75 years’ imprisonment. The Thirteenth Court 

of Appeals affirmed his conviction. Cantu v. State, No. 13-16-00002-CR 

(Tex. App.—Corpus Christi-Edinburgh July 13, 2017) (not designated 
Cantu – 2

for publication). 

In May of 2022, Applicant filed an application for writ of habeas 

corpus in the county of conviction. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 11.07. In 

his application, he alleges ineffective assistance of trial counsel, new 

scientific evidence, and false testimony. 

Today, the Court remands this application to the trial court to 

further develop the record. I join the Court’s remand order. But I write 

separately to address my thoughts concerning the doctrine of laches and 

its possible application to this case. See Ex parte Smith, 444 S.W.3d 661 

(Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (holding a trial court has the authority to sua 

sponte consider the doctrine of laches); Ex parte Bazille, ___ S.W.3d ___, 

No. WR-89,851-02, 2022 WL 108348 (Tex. Crim. App. Jan. 12, 2022) 

(Yeary, J., concurring).

The doctrine of laches ought to be considered in a case like this 

one. Applicant’s trial occurred in 2015, but this writ application was not 

filed until almost 7 years later.1 The record is also silent regarding 

circumstances that may excuse Applicant’s delay. At least some 

explanation for the long delay in filing should be provided.

Consistent with this Court’s precedent, the trial court “may sua 

sponte consider and determine whether laches should bar relief.” Smith, 

444 S.W.3d at 667. If the trial court does so, it must give Applicant the 

opportunity to explain the reasons for the delay and give the State’s 

1 “Our revised approach will permit courts to more broadly consider the 

diminished memories of trial participants and the diminished availability of 

the State’s evidence, both of which may often be said to occur beyond five years 

after a conviction becomes final.” Ex parte Perez, 398 S.W.3d 206, 216 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 2013) (citing Ex parte Steptoe, 132 S.W.3d 434, 437–39 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 2004) (Cochran, J., dissenting)). 
Cantu – 3

prosecutors and/or former counsel for Applicant an opportunity to state 

whether Applicant’s delay has caused any prejudice to their ability to 

defend against Applicant’s claims. Id. at 670. And ultimately, the trial 

court may include findings of fact and conclusions of law concerning the 

doctrine of laches in its response to this Court’s remand order.

With these additional thoughts, I join the Court’s order.

FILED: August 24, 2022

DO NOT PUBLISH
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 69 (Tuesday, April 10, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 21522]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-8451]


========================================================================
Notices
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains documents other than rules 
or proposed rules that are applicable to the public. Notices of hearings 
and investigations, committee meetings, agency decisions and rulings, 
delegations of authority, filing of petitions and applications and agency 
statements of organization and functions are examples of documents 
appearing in this section.

========================================================================


Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 69 / Tuesday, April 10, 2012 / 
Notices

[[Page 21522]]



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Boundary Establishment for the Allegheny National Wild and Scenic 
River, Allegheny National Forest, Warren, Forest, and Venango Counties, 
PA

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with Section 3(b) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers 
Act, the USDA Forest Service, Washington Office, is transmitting the 
final boundary of the Allegheny National Wild and Scenic River to 
Congress.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Information may be obtained by 
contacting Operations Staff Officer Jim Seyler, Allegheny National 
Forest, 4 Farm Colony Drive, Warren, PA or phone (814) 728-6239.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Allegheny Wild and Scenic River boundary 
is available for review at the following offices: USDA Forest Service, 
Wilderness & Wild and Scenic Rivers, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., 
Washington, DC 20024; Allegheny National Forest, 4 Farm Colony Drive, 
Warren, PA 16365. A detailed legal description is available upon 
request.
    The Allegheny Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (Pub. L. 102-271) of April 
20, 1992, designated the Allegheny River, Pennsylvania, as a Wild and 
Scenic River, to be administered by the Secretary of Agriculture. As 
specified by law, the boundary will not be effective until ninety days 
after Congress receives the transmittal.

    Dated: April 3, 2012.
Erin Connelly,
Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. 2012-8451 Filed 4-9-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE GUADALUPE SALAZAR-ROJAS, Petitioner,
v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, ** Attorney General, Respondent. No. 10-73678 Agency No. A092-023-080
MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted May 8, 2015 *** Pasadena, California Before: PREGERSON, TALLMAN, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges. Jose Salazar-Rojas, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) dismissal of his appeal from an 

# FILED
MAY 13 2015 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** Loretta E. Lynch is substituted fo r Eric H. Holder, Jr. as Attorney General. Fed. R. App. P. 43(c)(2). *** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).immigration judge’s decision denying his applications for cancellation of removal and voluntary departure. We have juri sdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. “We review de novo legal determinations regarding an alien’s eligibility for cancellation of removal.” Camacho-Cruz v. Holder , 621 F.3d 941, 942 n.1 (9th Cir. 2010). We grant the petition for review and remand for consideration of Salazar-Rojas’s application for cancellation of removal. The BIA erred when it held that Sal azar-Rojas’s conviction alone for making a false claim to U.S. citizenship, under 18 U.S.C. § 911, made him statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal as an alien who had falsely represented “himself to be a citizen of the United States for any purpose or benefit under [the INA] . . . or any Federal or State law.” 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(3)(D)(I) (emphasis added). While conviction under 18 U.S .C. § 911 requires that a defendant represent himself or herself to a be U.S. citizen “to someone with good reason to inquire,” United States v. Karouni , 379 F.3d 1139, 1142 (9th Cir. 2004), acting for a “purpose or benefit” under federal or state law is not an element of § 911. Therefore, based on his conviction under § 911 alone, the BIA could not determine that Salazar-Rojas was statutorily in eligible for cancellation of removal. In light of our disposition, we need not address Salazar-Rojas’s arguments concerning voluntary departure. PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.
IN THE MISSOURI COURT OF APPEALS

HANDDOWN LIST OF FEBRUARY 9 , 2016

WESTERN DISTRICT

THE FOLLOWING CASES WERE AFFIRMED PURSUANT TO RULE 84.16(b)

AND ISSUED PER CURIAM



### ------------------------------------------------------------------

WD78062 James S. Harris vs. State of Missouri

WD78360 Constance Elisabeth Durrell vs. Jason Grant Durrell

THE FOLLOWING CASES WERE AFFIRMED PURSUANT TO RULE 30.25(b)

AND ISSUED PER CURIAM



### ---------------------------------------------------------------- --

WD 77549 State of Missouri vs. Derrick Lamont Johnson
**CERTIFICATIONS**

I, Thomas Kirchner, certify that: 

  1) I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of FalconTarget, Inc.;  

  2) Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly report;  

  3) Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;  

  4) The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:  

  a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;  

  b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based upon such evaluation; and  

  c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal controls over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and  

  5) The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):  

  a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal controls which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information and  

  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal controls over financial reporting.  

Date: January 26, 2005 

By:   /s/   Thomas Kirchner 

    Thomas Kirchner

    Chief Executive Officer
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDG MENT

No. 04

- 23

- 00806

- CV

THE STATE OF TEXAS FOR THE BEST INTEREST AND PROTECTION OF L.M.

From the Probate Court No

. 1

, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2023MH02140

Honorable Oscar J. Kazen

, Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE MARTINEZ

, JUSTICE ALVAREZ , AND JUSTICE CHAPA

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED . It is ORDERED that no costs be assessed against appellant in relation to this appeal becau se appellant qualifies as indigent under Rule 20 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 20. T he clerk of the court shall issue the mandate instanter. See id . at R. 18.1(c).

SIGNED October 4, 2023.

_________________________________ Rebeca C. Martinez

, Chief Justice
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 Commerce

###### International Trade Administration

          - [A-821-811]

# AGENCY:

Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Brenda E. Waters, AD/CVD Operations, Customs Unit, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4735.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    On April 2, 2012, the Department of Commerce (“Department”) published its opportunity to request administrative review of the antidumping duty orders and inadvertently omitted Ammonium Nitrate from Russia, POR 5/2/2011-3/31/2012.                     *See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity To Request Administrative Review,*77 FR 63 (April 2, 2012). This notice serves as a correction to include the Ammonium Nitrate from Russia administrative review in the referenced notice.                

Dated: April 4, 2012.

Gary Taverman,

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations.

[FR Doc. 2012-8621 Filed 4-9-12; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P