alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
AAM-10-372-E August 23, 2010 Exemption No. 10118 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2010-0833

Mr. Travis Warthen

Vice President Leading Edge Aviation, Inc. 63048 Powell Butte Highway Bend, OR 97701

Dear Mr. Warthen:

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your request for exemption. It transmits our decision, explains its basis, and gives you the conditions and limitations of the exemption, including the date it ends.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter dated July 22, 2010, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of Leading Edge Aviation, Inc. (Leading Edge Aviation), for an exemption from iIpart 120 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). That exemption, if granted, would allow Leading Edge Aviation, which is operating under separate parts of the regulations, to cover its safety-sensitive employees under one testing program.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition

in the Federal Register because the requested exemption would not set a precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Leading Edge Aviation.

The FAA has issued a grant of exemption in circumstances similar in all material respects to those presented in your petition. In Grant of Exemption No. 9703 (copy enclosed), the FAA found that Solid Edge’s § 91.147 air tour operations were closely connected to its part 135 operations. The FAA also found that combining the petitioner’s two testing programs into one would be in the public interest and would maintain an equivalent level of safety to that provided by the current regulations. Thus, the FAA concluded it was unnecessary to burden the petitioner by requiring it to conduct two separate testing programs.2

Having reviewed your reasons for requesting an exemption, I find that—

 they do not differ materially from those presented by the petitioner in the enclosed grant of exemption;

 the reasons stated by the FAA for granting the enclosed exemption also apply to the situation you present; and

 a grant of exemption is in the public interest.

Our Decision

Under the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator has delegated to me, I hereby grant Leading Edge Aviation, Inc., an exemption from part 120 to the extent necessary to allow Leading Edge Aviation, which is operating under separate parts of the regulations, to cover its safety-sensitive employees under one testing program, subject to the conditions and limitations described below.

Conditions and Limitations

1. Employees of Leading Edge Aviation are subject to the drug and alcohol regulations at all times while conducting operations under part 135 or part 91.

2. The drug and alcohol testing program must be implemented under the auspices of the Leading Edge Aviation part 135 operation, not under part 91.

This exemption terminates on August 31, 2012, unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Sincerely,

/s/ Dr. Frederick E. Tilton, M.D. Federal Air Surgeon

Enclosure
#### James A. ARNETT, Plaintiff in Error, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Defendant in Error.

No. A-12472.

Criminal Court of Appeals of Oklahoma.

July 10, 1957.

*541Charles L. Miller, Jr., Tulsa, for plaintiff in error.

Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., Sam H. Lattimore, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant in error.

BRETT, Presiding Judge.

Plaintiff in error, James A. Arnett, defendant below, was charged by information in the Municipal Criminal Court of the City of Tulsa, Oklahoma, with the offense of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. He was tried by a jury, convicted, and his punishment fixed at ten days confinement in the county jail and a fine of $100. Judgment and sentence were entered accordingly, from which this appeal has been perfected.

The defendant makes but one contention which relates to a purported irregularity in the proceedings when the jury asked for additional instructions which it is urged the court gave orally. Defendant contends that under 12 O.S.1951 § 582, the same should have been in writing, and relies on Bird v. State, 22 Okl.Cr. 263, 210 P. 925. In his brief he makes the observation there was no record made because there was no court reporter there at the time.

This omission constitutes a fatal defect in this appeal. This Court has repeatedly held:

> “A matter assigned as error in the motion for a new trial and in the petition in error, but not shown by the case-made to be true, cannot be considered in the appellate court.” Herren v. State, 72 Okl.Cr. 254, 115 P.2d 258, 259; Jackson v. State, 86 Okl.Cr. 420, 193 P.2d 895.

For the foregoing reason, the judgment and sentence is affirmed.

POWELL and NIX, JJ., concur.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

May 27, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
136062 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 136062 COA: 281784 Oakland CC: 2007-212806-FC STEVEN JOHN GRIMSLEY, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 30, 2008 order of the Court of Appeals is consider ed, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

p0519 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

May 27, 2008

Clerk
### MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04

- 11

- 00050

- CR Maurice Louis HARTFIELD , Appellant

v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee From the 437th Judicial District Court , Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2009CR2039 Honorable Lori I. Valenzuela , Judge Presiding
PER CURIAM Sitting: Rebecca S immons , Justice Steven C. Hilbig, Justice Marialyn Barnard, Justice Delivered and Filed: March 16, 2011
DISMISSED The trial court’s certification in this appeal states that the case “is a plea

- bargain case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal.” Rule 25.2(d) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure provides, “[t]he appeal must be dismissed if a certification tha t shows the defendant has the right of appeal has not been made part of the record under these rules.” T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 25.2(d). Appellant’s counsel filed a written notice with this court that counsel reviewed the record and “can find no right of appeal f or Appellant.” We construe this notice as an indication that04

- 11

- 00050

- CR

- 2

- appellant will not seek to file an amended trial court certification showing that he has the right of appeal. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 25.2(d); 37.1; see also Daniels v. State , 110 S.W.3d 174, 177 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 2003, no pet.). In light of the record presented, we agree with Appellant’s counsel that Rule 25.2(d) requires this court dismiss this appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.

PER CURIAM
DO NOT PUBLISH
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF INCOME FILED AS
PART OF THE QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                           8,672
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           2,157
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                12,273
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     22,780
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          59,163
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            61,196
<LOANS>                                        189,545
<ALLOWANCE>                                      2,649
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 300,309
<DEPOSITS>                                     250,732
<SHORT-TERM>                                     7,611
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              1,190
<LONG-TERM>                                     10,341
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        16,557
<OTHER-SE>                                      13,878
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 300,309
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 13,512
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                3,466
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   416
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                17,394
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               7,854
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               8,572
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            8,822
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      774
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  5,020
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,189
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       3,178
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,178
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.21
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.21
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.29
<LOANS-NON>                                        812
<LOANS-PAST>                                     2,085
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 2,349
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      517
<RECOVERIES>                                        43
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                2,649
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             2,202
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            447
        

</TABLE>
April 13, 1998

20492

#### Alvarado v. Law Offices of Kurt Gronau

Affirmed
18032

#### Inouye v. Swinerton & Walberg Co.

March 3, 1997

Order No. 97-22

Affirmed
EXHIBIT 3.4

            CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT OF CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION

                                       OF

                           MILESTONE SCIENTIFIC, INC.



It is hereby certified that:

      1. The name of the Corporation (hereinafter called the "Corporation") is
Milestone Scientific Inc.

      2. The Certificate of Incorporation of the Corporation is hereby amended
to increase the authorized shares by striking out Article Fourth thereof and by
substituting in lieu of said Article the following new Article Fourth:

      "FOURTH: The total number of shares of stock which the Corporation shall
      have authority to issue is 25,000,000 shares. The par value of each of
      such shares is $.001. All such shares are of one class and are shares of
      Common Stock.

      3. The amendment of the Certificate of Incorporation herein certified have
been duly adopted in accordance with the provisions of Section 242 of the
General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware.



Signed on December 11, 1997
                                          /s/ Leonard Osser
                                          ------------------------------
                                          Leonard Osser
                                          President and Chief Executive Officer
#### Bennie Jay EATMON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. B.D. MORGAN, Incorporated; Billy D. Morgan, individually; E.L. Ross, Incorporated; Mackie Rogers, individually; Billy Ellington, individually; *840Phil Hicks, individually; Federal Crop Insurance Corporation; John Doe; Jane Jannell Doe, Rn, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 05-1306.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 3, 2005.

Decided Oct. 20, 2005.

Bennie Jay Eatmon, Appellant Pro Se. Franklin LeVerne Adams, Jr., Valentine, Adams & Lamar, L.L.P., Nashville, North Carolina; Derek Morgan Crump, Brown, Crump, Vanore & Tierney, Raleigh, North Carolina; Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Bennie Jay Eatmon appeals the district court’s order granting Defendants’ motions for judgment on the pleadings and for summary judgment and dismissing his civil action. He also appeals the district court’s denial of his subsequent motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. *See Eatmon v. B.D. Morgan, Inc.,*No. 5:02-CV-745-BO(3) (E.D.N.C. Mar. 16, 2004); *Eatmon v. B.D. Morgan, Inc.,*No. 5:02-CV-745-BO(3) (E.D.N.C. Jan. 12, 2005). We deny Eatmon’s motion to stay. 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.

*AFFIRMED*
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATE OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICERPursuant to Section 906(a) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002  Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18
United States Code

The
undersigned, being the Principal Executive Officer of Enbridge Energy Partners, L.P. (the "Partnership"), hereby certifies that the Partnership's Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2004, filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)), fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained
in such Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form
within the electronic version 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.

Date:
August 16, 2004

|/s/DAN C. TUTCHERDan C. Tutcher
President and Principal Executive Officer | 
|------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 

---



QuickLinks
## In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 19

- 00122

- CV

UATP M ANAGEMENT , LLC

, Appellant

V

.

L EAP OF F AITH A DVENTURES , LLC

, Appellee §

§

§

§ On Appeal from the 17th Di st ri ct Court

of Tarrant County ( 017

- 300796

- 18 )

October 15, 2020

Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Sudderth

JUDGMENT

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

was error in part of the trial court’s judgment. W e reverse in part the trial court’s

order denying UATP’s TCPA motion, and we render judgment dismissing Leap of

Faith’s tortious interference claims for inducing Leap of Faith employees to leave

their employment at Leap of Faith and go to work for UATP and f or contacting

suppliers and inducing them not to do business with Leap of Faith. We remand the

case as to these two claims for the trial court to consider court cos ts and attorney’s

fees under Civil Practice and Remedies Code Section 27.009. Tex. Civ. Pr ac. & Rem.Code Ann. § 27.009. As to all remaining claims not dismissed by the trial court, we

affirm the trial court’s denial of UATP’s motion to dismiss.

It is further ordered that all parti es shall be ar their own cost of this proceeding,

for which le t ex ecution issue.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By /s/ Bonnie Sudderth Chief Justice Bonnie Sudderth
#### Branco v. State

23081

12/21/2000

Affirmed
SUPREME COURT OF HAWAI'I

June 23, 1997

20105

#### Benbow, Matter of

Affirmed
H. Res. 934 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

November 30, 2016. 

Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall 

be in order to take from the Speaker’s table the bill (H.R. 

34) to authorize and strengthen the tsunami detection, forecast, warning, research, and mitigation program of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and for 

other purposes, with the Senate amendment thereto, and to 

consider in the House, without intervention of any point of 

order, a motion offered by the chair of the Committee on Energy and Commerce or his designee that the House concur 

in the Senate amendment with an amendment consisting of 

the text of Rules Committee Print 114–67 modified by the 

amendment printed in part A of the report of the Committee 

on Rules accompanying this resolution. The Senate amendment and the motion shall be considered as read. The motion 

shall be debatable for 80 minutes, with 60 minutes equally 

divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 

member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce and 20 

minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and rank-
2 

•HRES 934 EH 

ing minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means. 

The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 

motion to its adoption without intervening motion. 

SEC. 2. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 

order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 6392) to amend 

the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act to specify when bank holding companies may be subject to certain enhanced supervision, and for other purposes. 

All points of order against consideration of the bill are 

waived. The bill shall be considered as read. All points of 

order against provisions in the bill are waived. The previous 

question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and on any 

amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 

Committee on Financial Services; (2) the amendment printed 

in part B of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution, if offered by the Member designated 

in the report, which shall be in order without intervention of 

any point of order, shall be considered as read, shall be separately debatable for the time specified in the report equally 

divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, 

and shall not be subject to a demand for a division of the 
3 

•HRES 934 EH 

question; and (3) one motion to recommit with or without instructions. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

PAOLA FRENCH; RUSSELL FRENCH, 

Plaintiffs-Appellees, 

 v. 

CITY OF LOS ANGELES, 

Defendant-Appellant, 

and 

SALVADOR SANCHEZ, in his official 

capacity and in his individual capacity; 

DOES, 1-10, inclusive, 

Defendants.

No. 22-55571 

D.C. No. 

5:20-cv-00416-JGB-SP 

Central District of California, 

Riverside 

ORDER

Before: WARDLAW, CHRISTEN, and SUNG, Circuit Judges.

The Memorandum filed on October 16, 2023, Dkt. Entry 49, is amended as 

follows:

1. On slip opinion page 5, starting at line 5, replace <Under California’s scope 

of employment rule, “[a] nexus must exist between the employment and the 

tort if the employer is fairly to be held liable.” Xue Lu v. Powell, 621 F.3d 

944, 948–49 (9th Cir. 2010).> with <Under California’s scope of 

employment rule, the employee’s tortious conduct must have “a causal 

nexus to the employee’s work.” Lisa M. v. Henry Mayo Newhall Mem’l 

Hosp., 12 Cal. 4th 291, 297 (1995). “The nexus required for respondeat 

superior liability—that the tort be engendered by or arise from the work—is 

to be distinguished from ‘but for’ causation,” and the California Supreme 

Court “[has] used varied language to describe the nature of the required 

additional link (which, in theory, is the same for intentional and negligent 

FILED

NOV 27 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

torts): the incident leading to injury must be an ‘outgrowth’ of the 

employment; the risk of tortious injury must be ‘inherent in the working 

environment’ or ‘typical of or broadly incidental to the enterprise [the 

employer] has undertaken.’” Id. at 298 (internal citations omitted) (second 

alteration in original).>.

2. On slip opinion page 5, starting at line 12, delete <We have recognized that 

California’s scope of employment rule is significantly broader than the 

traditional rule. See Xue Lu, 621 F.3d at 948.>.

With these amendments, the panel has voted to deny the petition for panel

rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc.

The full court has been advised of the petition for rehearing en banc and no

judge has requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc. Fed. R. App. P.

35.

The petition for panel rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc are

DENIED. No further petitions for rehearing will be accepted.