alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Robert B. McCREARY, Appellant, v. PEABODY COAL COMPANY et al., Appellees.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Dec. 1, 1961.

J. Leonard Davis, Harlan, for appellant.

Sampson & Rice, Harlan, for appellees.

MILLIKEN, Judge.

The sole question on this appeal is whether the employee and claimant, Robert B. McCreary, was given a review of his case by the Full Workmen’s Compensation Board after his motion for such a review. A referee of the Board had written an opinion denying compensation, a conclusion well supported by medical evidence. A cursory Opinion and Order by the Chairman of the Board affirmed the conclusions of the referee saying, "It is the opinion of the Board that the referee has correctly evaluated all of the expert testimony in this case and is correct in his findings that the plaintiff does not have an occupational disease.” And the Executive Secretary of the Board certified “the Opinion and Order of the Full Board appears in Order Book No. 51 and was approved by the Chairman of the Board, William O. Miller, on January 21, 1960, with the Full Board concurring.”

In the light of such a record it is difficult for us to appreciate the basis of the appeal.

The judgment is affirmed.
7310 Turfway Road, Suite 400 ‐ Florence ‐ Kentucky ‐ 41042 ‐ USA

Phone:  +1.859.568.9200

                  www.southernair.com

Federal Aviation Administration

Regulatory Dockets

Orville Wright Building (FOB‐10A)

800 Independence Avenue, SW

Washington, DC 20591

Filed to the Federal Register – Electronically

June 13, 2016

Subject: Time‐limited Exemption from 14 CFR 91.227 (c)(1)(i) and (iii) – Automatic Dependent

Surveillance Broadcast (ADS‐B) Out Equipment Performance Requirements

Reference: Grant of Exemption Number 12555, regulatory docket No. FAA 2015‐0971

Grant of Exemption No. 12555 provides for a time‐limited grant of exemption from the ADB‐B

Navigation Integrity Category (NIC) and Navigation Accuracy Category for position (NACp)

requirements of 14 CFR section 91.227 (c)(1)(i) and (iii) from January 1, 2020 through December

31, 2024.

Southern Air Inc. 7310 Turfway Road, Suite 400 Florence, KY 41094 hereby notifies the FAA that

we intend to comply with the conditions and limitations expressed in the exemption cited

above.

Sincerely yours,

Capt. Steve Briner

Vice President, Flight Operations

Southern Air, Inc.

Office (859)‐568‐9194

sbriner@southernair.com

www.southernair.com
# 1740# TIME TO KITE THE WING ROTAX ONLY ROTAX + PROSTAR 2.0 SEC 4.0 SEC 3.0 SEC 6.0 SEC 

# A A B B 2 2

1 1 

# 1740# DO NOT SCALE DRAWING 

### SHEET 1 OF 1 UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED: 

### SCALE: 1:1 WEIGHT: REV DWG. NO. 

# A SIZE TITLE: NAME DATE COMMENTS: Q.A. MFG APPR. ENG APPR. CHECKED DRAWN FINISH MATERIAL INTERPRET GEOMETRIC TOLERANCING PER: DIMENSIONS ARE IN INCHES TOLERANCES: FRACTIONAL ANGULAR: MACHBEND TWO PLACE DECIMAL THREE PLACE DECIMAL APPLICATIONUSED ON NEXT ASSY 

### PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS

DRAWING IS THE SOLE PROPERTY OF SKYRUNNER, LLC. ANY REPRODUCTION IN PART OR AS A WHOLE

WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF SKYRUNNER, LLC IS PROHIBITED.

# 1740# TIME TO WHEELS UP ROTAX ONLY ROTAX + PROSTAR 17.0 SEC 26.0 SEC 

# A A B B 2 2

1 1 

# 1740# DO NOT SCALE DRAWING 

### SHEET 1 OF 1 UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED: 

### SCALE: 1:1 WEIGHT: REV DWG. NO. 

# A SIZE TITLE: NAME DATE COMMENTS: Q.A. MFG APPR. ENG APPR. CHECKED DRAWN FINISH MATERIAL INTERPRET GEOMETRIC TOLERANCING PER: DIMENSIONS ARE IN INCHES TOLERANCES: FRACTIONAL ANGULAR: MACHBEND TWO PLACE DECIMAL THREE PLACE DECIMAL APPLICATIONUSED ON NEXT ASSY 

### PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS

DRAWING IS THE SOLE PROPERTY OF SKYRUNNER, LLC. ANY REPRODUCTION IN PART OR AS A WHOLE

WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF SKYRUNNER, LLC IS PROHIBITED.

# 1740# DISTANCE TO KITE THE WING ROTAX ONLY ROTAX + PROSTAR 10' 20' 15' 28' 

# A A B B 2 2

1 1 

# 1740# DO NOT SCALE DRAWING 

### SHEET 1 OF 1 UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED: 

### SCALE: 1:1 WEIGHT: REV DWG. NO. 

# A SIZE TITLE: NAME DATE COMMENTS: Q.A. MFG APPR. ENG APPR. CHECKED DRAWN FINISH MATERIAL INTERPRET GEOMETRIC TOLERANCING PER: DIMENSIONS ARE IN INCHES TOLERANCES: FRACTIONAL ANGULAR: MACHBEND TWO PLACE DECIMAL THREE PLACE DECIMAL APPLICATIONUSED ON NEXT ASSY 

### PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS

DRAWING IS THE SOLE PROPERTY OF SKYRUNNER, LLC. ANY REPRODUCTION IN PART OR AS A WHOLE

WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF SKYRUNNER, LLC IS PROHIBITED.

# 1740# DISTANCE TO WHEELS UP ROTAX ONLY ROTAX + PROSTAR 600' 800' 

# A A B B 2 2

1 1 

# 1740# DO NOT SCALE DRAWING 

### SHEET 1 OF 1 UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED: 

### SCALE: 1:1 WEIGHT: REV DWG. NO. 

# A SIZE TITLE: NAME DATE COMMENTS: Q.A. MFG APPR. ENG APPR. CHECKED DRAWN FINISH MATERIAL INTERPRET GEOMETRIC TOLERANCING PER: DIMENSIONS ARE IN INCHES TOLERANCES: FRACTIONAL ANGULAR: MACHBEND TWO PLACE DECIMAL THREE PLACE DECIMAL APPLICATIONUSED ON NEXT ASSY 

### PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS

DRAWING IS THE SOLE PROPERTY OF SKYRUNNER, LLC. ANY REPRODUCTION IN PART OR AS A WHOLE

WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF SKYRUNNER, LLC IS PROHIBITED.
<PAGE>

                                AMENDMENT NO. 3

                                     TO

                       SALARY DEFERRAL SAVINGS PROGRAM OF 
                          WELLPOINT HEALTH NETWORKS INC.

                    (As Amended and Restated January 1, 1997)

                       (As Amended through October 1, 1997)


     The Salary Deferral Savings Program of WellPoint Health Networks Inc., 
("Plan") is further amended as follows:

1.  Effective November 1, 1998, Section 5.02(a) of the Plan is clarified, in 
its entirety, to read as follows:

     GENERAL RULE.  Except as provided in (b) below, Matching Contributions 
     will equal 75% (or a greater of lesser percentage determined by each 
     Participating Company before the payroll period) of the Salary Deferral 
     Contribution that the Participant directed during the Plan Year, while 
     eligible for Matching Contributions as provided in Section 5.02(g) of 
     the Plan.  Notwithstanding the foregoing, Salary Deferral Contributions 
     in excess of 6% of a Participant's Compensation for the period that he 
     or she is match eligible for a Plan Year (or such greater or lesser 
     percentage determined by each Participating Company before the payroll 
     period) will not be matched.  To the extent administratively feasible, 
     Matching Contributions will be credited to a Participant's Account on a 
     payroll period by payroll period basis.

2.  Effective November 1, 1998, Section 5.02(b) of the Plan is clarified, in 
its entirety, to read as follows:

     GRANDFATHERED MATCH.  For Participants with 10 or more but less than 20 
     Years of Service at the beginning of the first payroll period ending on 
     or after January 1, 1997, Matching Contributions will equal 85% of the 
     Salary Deferral Contribution that the Participant directed during the 
     Plan Year, while eligible for Matching Contributions as provided in 
     Section 5.02(g) of the Plan.  For Participants with 20 or more Years of 
     Service at the beginning of the first payroll period ending on or after 
     January 1, 1997, Matching Contributions will equal 100% of the Salary 
     Deferral Contribution that the Participant directed during the Plan 
     Year, while eligible for Matching Contributions as provided in Section 
     5.02(g) of the Plan.  Notwithstanding the foregoing, Salary Deferral 

<PAGE>

     Contributions in excess of 6% of a Participant's Compensation for the 
     period that he or she is match eligible for a Plan Year will not be 
     matched. To the extent administratively feasible, Matching 
     Contributions will be credited to a Participant's Account on a payroll 
     period by payroll period basis.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, WellPoint Health Networks Inc. has caused this 
Amendment to be executed this 30th day of November, 1998


WELLPOINT HEALTH NETWORKS INC.


By: /s/ J. Thomas Van Berkem
   --------------------------














                                       2
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-7648

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

JAMES DARREN TAYLOR,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Richard L. Voorhees,

District Judge. (CR-94-40, CA-98-182-3-V)

Submitted: March 21, 2002 Decided: March 27, 2002

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Darren Taylor, Appellant Pro Se. Gretchen C.F. Shappert,

Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

James Darren Taylor seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 motion (West Supp. 2001). We

dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because Appellant’s

notice of appeal was not timely filed.

Parties are accorded sixty days after the entry of the

district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, see

Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1), unless the district court extends the

appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal

period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). This appeal period is

“mandatory and jurisdictional.” Browder v. Director, Dep’t of

Corrections, 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v.

Robinson, 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)).

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on June

26, 2001. Appellant’s notice of appeal was filed on September 17,

2001. Because Appellant failed to file a timely notice of appeal

or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

JEAN LUXAMA,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D18-2020

[January 3, 2019]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.853 motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, Indian River County; Cynthia L. Cox, 

Judge; L.T. Case No. 312010CF001636A.

Jean Luxama, Milton, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

WARNER, MAY and CIKLIN, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
##### 



Exhibit 32.1 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 Quarterly Report of TBX Resources, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB
for the period ended February 28, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the Report), I, Tim Burroughs, President, Chief Executive Officer and Principal
Executive and Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge: (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as applicable; and (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company at the dates and for the periods
indicated. Dated this 15 th day of July 2005. By: /s/ Tim Burroughs, PresidentPrincipal Executive and Financial Officer
Exhibit 32.1



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



In connection with the annual report on Form 10-K of MeriStar Hospitality
Corporation (the Registrant) for the year ended December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned hereby certifies, in the capacity as indicated below and
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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, as amended, and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|                        |  |                                 
|----------------------- |  | --------------------------------
|Date:    March 16, 2005 |  | /s/ Paul W. Whetsell            
|                        |  | Paul W. Whetsell                
|                        |  | Chief Executive Officer         
|                        |  | MeriStar Hospitality Corporation
## In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 23

- 00265

- CR

L UCIOUS N EWHOUSE III

, Appellant

V

.

T HE S TATE OF T EXAS §

§

§

§

§ On Appeal from the 432nd District Court

of Tarrant County ( 1561061 )

August 15, 2024

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Womack

(nfp)

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/ Dana Wo mack

Justice Dana Womack
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This Schedule contains summary information extracted from the 10-K of American
President Companies, Ltd. for the year ended December 29, 1995 and is qualified
in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-29-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-29-1995
<CASH>                                          76,564
<SECURITIES>                                    59,086
<RECEIVABLES>                                  245,490<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     40,358
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               502,338
<PP&E>                                       2,203,448
<DEPRECIATION>                                 961,971
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,878,783
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          437,188
<BONDS>                                        687,087
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        25,669
<OTHER-SE>                                     443,501
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,878,783
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,895,982
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,702,342<F2>
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                48,372<F3>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              38,318
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 53,153
<INCOME-TAX>                                    22,856
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    30,297
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.95
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.99
<FN>
<F1>The Allowance for Doubtful Accounts, included in Receivables, amounted to
$22,531 at December 29, 1995.
<F2>The Provision for Doubtful Accounts, included in Total-Costs, amounted to
$14,937 for the 52 weeks ended December 29, 1995.
<F3>Restructuring charge of 48,372 represents cost associated with the
accelerated completion of the reegineering program and other organizational
changes.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>


EXHIBIT 11

              EXECUTONE INFORMATION SYSTEMS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
              STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
                    (In Thousands, Except Per Share Amounts)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                       Years Ended December 31,
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      1997               1996                 1995
                                                  -------------------------------------------------

<S>                                                   <C>                 <C>              <C>      
Income (Loss) From Continuing Operations
   Before Extraordinary Item                          $    (221)          $ 24,162         $(36,934)
Extraordinary Item, Net of Taxes                            ---               (355)             ---
                                                   ------------         ----------    -------------

Net Income (Loss)                                     $    (221)          $ 23,807         $(36,934)
                                                      =========           ========         ========

Earnings (Loss) Per Share:
   Income (Loss) Before Extraordinary Item          $       ---          $    0.47       $   (0.79)
   Extraordinary Item                                       ---              (0.01)             ---
                                                   ------------          ---------     ------------
   Net Income (Loss)                                $       ---          $    0.46       $   (0.79)
                                                    ===========          =========       =========

Diluted Earnings (Loss) Per Share:
   Income (Loss) Before Extraordinary Item          $       ---          $    0.46       $   (0.79)
   Extraordinary Item                                       ---              (0.01)            ---
                                                   ------------         ----------    ------------
   Net Income (Loss)                                $       ---          $    0.45       $   (0.79)
                                                    ===========          =========       =========

Average Common Shares Outstanding:
   Basic                                                49,655              51,712           46,919
                                                      ========            ========         ========
   Diluted                                              49,655              52,251           46,919
                                                      ========            ========         ========

</TABLE>


<PAGE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

 Respondent

 v.

PAUL EDWARD TORNERO,

 Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 107 MAL 2014

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 5th day of August, 2014, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED.
SCPW-15-0000638

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAII

________________________________________________________________

GERALD VILLANUEVA, Petitioner,

vs.

STATE OF HAWAII, Respondent.

________________________________________________________________ 

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

(NO. 20220; CR. NO. 96-0078)

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.)

Upon consideration of Petitioner Gerald Villanueva’s 

“Petition to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Judgment or to 

Release Petitioner from Custody,” which was filed on August 28, 

2015 as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, the documents 

attached thereto and submitted in support thereof, and the 

record, it appears that Petitioner is presently seeking 

identical relief in CAAP-15-0000408, and presents no special 

reason for this court to invoke its jurisdiction at this time. 

See Oili v. Chang, 57 Haw. 411, 412, 557 P.2d 787, 788 (1976) 

(the supreme court “will not exercise its original jurisdiction 

in habeas corpus proceedings when relief is available in a lower 

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCPW-15-0000638

01-SEP-2015

10:47 AM
2

court and no special reason exists for invoking its 

jurisdiction”). Accordingly, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for a writ of 

habeas corpus is denied.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, September 1, 2015.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna 

/s/ Richard W. Pollack

/s/ Michael D. Wilson
### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-14-00727- CV

Naom i Jeff

erson, Appellant
v. Nate the G reat

Trust, Appellee

F ROM TH E CO UNTY COURT O F LAW NO . 1 O F TRAVIS CO UNTY NO. C-1 -CV- 14- 0090 36, H ONO RAB LE J. DAVID P HI LLIP S, JUDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O PI N I O N
On J anuar

y 8, 2015, this Co u rt s en t notice to appellant Naomi J eff erson that the cler k’s re cord a

nd repor ter’s r ecord wer e due in this Court on Dec ember 12, 2014, and that notice
was rec eived from the Travis County cler k’s office that no pay

m en t h ad b ee n rec eived or
arr ang ements made for pay ment for the cler

k’s rec ord. This Court reque sted that ap p ellant make
arr ang ements for the rec ord and submit a status repor t. Appellant was notified that her appea l would be dismiss ed for want o f p ro s ecution if she did respond to this Court by J anuar y 20, 2015. This Court rec eived a letter from appellant on Fe bruar y 9, 2015. She provided a n ew addre ss and indicated that she would pay for the r ecor d. On Fe bruar

y 11, 2015, this Court sent another notice to appellant reque sting that appellant make arr ang ements for the rec ord and submit a status repor t. Appellant was notified that her appea l would be dismiss ed for want of prosec ution if she did respond to this Cou rt byFe bruar

y 23, 2015. To date, appellant has not r esponded. A ccor dingly , we dismiss the appea l for want of pr osecution. SeeTex. R. App. P . 42.3(b), ( c).

__________________________________________ Melissa Goodwin, Jus tice Be fore Chief Justice Rose, Jus tices Goodwin a nd Field Dismissed for Want of Prosecution Filed: Mar ch 17, 2015

2
EXHIBIT 99.1


Below each General Partner's name is a list of the limited  partnerships,  other
than the  Registrant,  for which the General Partner serves as a general partner
and the companies for which the General  Partner serves as a director.  The list
includes only those  limited  partnerships  and companies  which have a class of
securities  registered  pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 or are subject to the requirements of Section 15(d) of the Act.




John J. Nooney

  Limited Partnerships:


   Nooney Real Property Investors-Two, L.P.     Nooney Income Fund Ltd. II, L.P.

Companies:

   None


                                       18
#### W. W. (Woody) HEIDELBERG et ux., Petitioners, v. Arthur Fred HARVEY et al., Respondents.

No. A-9566.

Supreme Court of Texas.

June 26, 1963.

*948Leonard Howell, Midland, for petitioners.

Deaderick & McMahon, Odessa, far respondents.

PER CURIAM.

The Court of Civil Appeals opinion is reported in 366 S.W.2d 121. The order from which an appeal was attempted is not an appealable order. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals is reversed and the attempted appeal from the District Court is dismissed. Rule 483, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, McCauley v. Consolidated Underwriters, 157 Tex. 475, 304 S.W.2d 265.