alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
SERVED: February 11, 2015 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTER OF 

DELTA AIR LINES, INC. 

FAA DOCKET NO. [TO BE ASSIGNED] 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

FDMS NO. FAA 2014-0814 

ORDER ON DELTA'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE REPLY 

The Federal Aviation Administration (hereinafter "FAA") filed a Complaint dated 

October 16, 2014. Delta Air Lines, Inc., (hereinafter "Delta") filed a "Motion for Leave 

to File Reply" dated November 26,2014. The FAA has not responded. 

WHEREFORE, it be and is hereby ORDERED as follows: 

1. Delta's Motion for Leave to File Reply is GRANTED. 

Richard C. Goodwin 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

Attachment- Service List 

--. '~: · ... )-
SERVICE LIST 

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 

Jon-Peter F. Kelly, Re.spondent 's Counsel 

Assistant General Counsel 

Delta Air Lines, Inc. 

Department 981 

1030 Delta Boulevard 

Atlanta, GA 30354-1989 

TEL: 404-714-9631 

FAX: 404-714-5631 

ONE COPY 

Christopher R. Stevenson, Complainant's Counsel 

Office of the Regional Counsel, ASO-7 

Southern Region 

1701 Columbia A venue 

College Park, GA 30337 

TEL: 404-305-5200 

FAX: 404-305-5223 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-5121 Staff Assistant 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

FDMS No. FAA-2014-0814 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2WIOOO, Washington, 

DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. 

2
#### Otis DAY, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 28676.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Dec. 12, 1956.

*535No attorney for appellant of record on appeal.

Leon Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for •.the State.

PER CURIAM.

The conviction, on a plea of guilty before the court, is for the offense of unlawfully possessing intoxicating liquor in a dry area for the purpose of sale; the punishment, 10 days in jail and a fine of $300.

The record on appeal contains no statement of facts or bills of exception. All proceedings appear to be regular and nothing is presented for review. The judgment is affirmed.
#### Goodman, Appellant, *v.*Industrial Commission of Ohio, Appellee.

(No. 27173

Decided February 15, 1939.)

*Messrs. Welles, Kelsey, Coburn S Harrington*and *Mr. Harley A. Watkins,*for appellant.

*Mr. Herbert 8. Duffy*and *Mr. Thomas J. Herbert,*attorneys general, *Mr. Eugene Carlin, Mr. John Rossetti*and *Mr. E. P. Felker,*for appellee.

By the Court.

The record in this case would in*82dicate that David Goodman died from a heart condition which came upon him while he was occupied with his customary duties as a baker. Does such incident come within the classification of an “injury” entitling his dependents to death benefits from the State Insurance Fund?

Whatever the rule in other jurisdictions may be, the Supreme Court of Ohio, through a long’ line of decisions, has consistently defined the meaning of the term “injury,” as used in the Constitution and statutes, to be physical or traumatic injuries accidental in their origin and cause; the result of a sudden happening at a particular time. *Industrial Commission*v. *Franken,*126 Ohio St., 299, 185 N. E., 199; *Industrial Commission*v. *Lambert,*126 Ohio St., 501, 186 N. E., 89.

All of the eye witnesses testified that Goodman was at his bench handling dough in the usual way and under the usual conditions, when he collapsed from no apparent cause. He was not engaged in any extraordinary effort at the time; in fact there is no disclosure of anything occurring to him by reason of the activities, conditions' or environments of his employment which can possibly be denoted as a compensable injury within the rules so often announced by this court.

It hardly seems necessary to remark that in cases of this general type the peculiar facts of the individual case are largely controlling. Here, the members of this court are unanimously of the opinion that the appellee was entitled to a directed verdict or judgment in its favor upon the rehearing record before the court, and on the basis that no injury was shown.

Such determination makes' other errors assigned by counsel for the appellant of little practical importance, relating as they do to medical testimony, claimed to have been improperly introduced and received, on the point of whether the decedent’s heart dilatation was at*83tributable to the general character of the work he was performing.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.

*Judgment affirmed.*

Weygandt, C. J., Day, Zimmerman, Williams, Myers, Matthias and Hart, JJ., concur.
#### James Ray MOSS, Appellant, v. Richard J. SHERWIN, Appellee.

No. 13517.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. San Antonio.

Oct., 14, 1959.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 12, 1959.

Keys, Russell, Keys & Watson, Corpus Christi, for appellant.

Kleberg, Mobley, Lockett & Weil, J. Lev Hunt, Corpus Christi, for appellee.

POPE, Justice.

This venue case concerns Section 9a of Article 1995, Vernon’s Ann.Civ.Stats. Richard J. Sherwin sued James Ray Moss in Nueces County for personal injuries he received in an intersection collision. The trial court overruled Moss’ plea of privilege to be sued in Llano County. Moss urges that there is no evidence in support of Sherwin’s pleadings that Moss ran through a red light, failed to keep a proper lookout, failed to apply his brakes, failed to avoid the collision, and was speeding, and that such negligence was the proximate cause of the accident. We affirm the judgment.

Sherwin was traveling west and stopped' on Bessie Street in Corpus Christi, Nueces County, Texas, because a traffic control signaled a red light. The signal did not have arrows, but only lights. Sherwin testified that he saw the light change to green, and that traffic to his right, proceeding from the north, stopped because the north light was red. Sherwin was on a motorcycle and he proceeded into the intersection when Moss approached from the south at a speed in excess of twenty miles an hour. Moss’ vehicle knocked him from the motorcycle and caused the injuries. Moss argues that Sherwin did not produce evidence that the light on the south side of the signal control was red instead of green.

Sherwin saw two lights. The light toward him was green and permitted him to move west. The one on the north was red and stopped southbound traffic. With two *817streets intersecting at right angles, it would strain reasonable inferences to believe that the traffic controls authorized traffic on both streets to proceed at once on simultaneous green signals. See Art. 6701d, § 33, Vernon’s Ann.Civ.Stats. From Sher-win’s testimony, the reasonable inferences are that the south signal, toward Moss, was red and that he proceeded into the intersection against the light. Moss failed to produce evidence in his possession which would have rebutted the inference against him, and that failure strengthened the inference. Dunn v. Johnson, Tex.Civ.App., 274 S.W.2d 108; 1 McCormick and Ray, Texas Law of Evidence, § 100.

We overrule Moss’ claim that there was no evidence of the venue facts, for there was proof of negligence and proximate cause with respect to his running through a red light. It is unnecessary to discuss the proof touching the other pleadings of negligence.

The judgment is affirmed.
LAW OFFICES 

## PIERRE MURPHY

SUITE 800 1 2 0 0 NEW HAMPSHIRE AVENUE, NW WASHINGTON , D . C . 20036 TELE P H O NE : TELEC O PIE R : 

# •• E-MAIL: ._ June 27 , 2013 VIA ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION Docket OST - 98-3305 Dockets Facility (SVC-121 . 30) U.S . Department of Transportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE West Building Ground Floor Room W12-140 Washington , D . C . 20590 Re: Haiti Aviation, S.A . , d/b/a Air D' Ayiti Dear Ms. Hairston: Pursuant to the Passenger Manifest Information rule , 14 C . F . R . §243 . 13 of the Department's Regulations, Haiti Aviation , S.A . , d/b/a Air D 'Ayiti ( " Air D'Ayiti") respectfully submits this letter summarizing how Air D' Ayiti will collect and transmit the required Pas senger Manifest Information. Air D ' Ayiti is a Haiti-flag with exemption authority I to conduct scheduled foreign air transportation of persons , property and mail between Haiti and the U . S . Haiti has been assessed a " Category 2" rating by the FAA International Safety Assessment Program , and Air D' Ayiti is therefore required to conduct its operations to the U . S. exclu sively pursuant to a wet lease from a duly authorized U.S. air carrier. Air D ' Ayiti, therefore, adopts and incorporates the method of its wet lessor, the U . S . certificated air carrier Falcon Air Express , Inc., for collection of the inf ormation required by this rule .

See : Docket OST- 2002-12196 (APA invoked).Should you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sircerely, 

# A ~ - -I/ Pierre hy Atto ey for Haiti Aviation, S.A., d/b/a Air D' Ayiti

cc: Sebastian Toussaint
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 27 (Thursday, February 8, 2024)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 8621]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-02578]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 1

[WC Docket No. 21-341; Report No. 3208; FR ID 201128]


Petitions for Reconsideration of Action in Rulemaking Proceeding; 
Correction

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Petition for reconsideration; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Communications Commission corrects a Proposed rule 
published in the Federal Register of January 29, 2024, announcing the 
dates for filing oppositions and replies to a Petition for 
Reconsideration of Action in a Rulemaking Proceeding, adopted by the 
Commission on November 15, 2023. The document contained an error in the 
Dates section, the contact information, and the subject of the 
supplementary information.

DATES: February 8, 2024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, please 
contact Melissa Droller Kirkel, Competition Policy Division, Wireline 
Competition Bureau, at 202-418-7958 or <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#470a222b2e343426690c2e352c222b0721242469202831"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="7d301811140e0e1c5336140f1618113d1b1e1e531a120b">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Federal Register of January 29, 2024, 
in FR Doc. 2024-01632, on page 5451, the following corrections are 
made:

Correction

    1. In the first column, last paragraph, correct the Dates caption 
to read:

DATES: Oppositions to the Petitions must be filed on or before February 
13, 2024. Replies to oppositions must be filed on or before February 
23, 2024.

Correction

    2. In the second column, second paragraph from the top, correct the 
For Further Information Contact caption to read:


FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, please 
contact Melissa Droller Kirkel, Competition Policy Division, Wireline 
Competition Bureau, at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#afe2cac3c6dcdcce81e4c6ddc4cac3efc9cccc81c8c0d9"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="f3be969f9a808092ddb89a8198969fb3959090dd949c85">[email protected]</span></a>, 202-418-7958.

Correction

    3. In the second column, fourth paragraph from the top, correct the 
Supplementary Information caption to read:
    Subject: Protecting Consumers from SIM Swap and Port-out Fraud (WC 
Docket No. 21-341).

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2024-02578 Filed 2-7-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Order filed January 23, 2014

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 13

- 00218

- CR

____________ DANIEL MICAH VERMILY EA , Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 176th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1335846



### ORDER
Appellant’s court

- appointed counsel filed a brief in which he concludes the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. Appellant has made known to this Court his desire to review the record and file a pro se brief. See Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967); Gainous v. State , 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969).Accordingly, we hereby direct the Judge of the 176th District Court to afford

appellant an opportunity to view the trial record in accordance with local

pro cedure; that the clerk of that court furnish the record to appellant on or before February 7, 2014 ; that the clerk of that court certify to this court the date on which delivery of the record to appellant is made; and that appellant file his pro se
brief w ith this court within thirty days of that date.

PER CURIAM
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER ON M OTION

November 7, 2008 Revision Cause number: 01

- 1 6

- 00 111

- C V

Style: In re Kurtz Properties, Ltd., A Texas Limited Partnership, and Houston

Foam Plastics, Inc.

Date motion filed * : March 3 1 , 201 6

Type of motion: Second Unopposed M otion of Real Party in Interest to Exten d

Deadline for Response to Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Part y filing motion s : Real Part y in Interest Harris County

Document to be filed: Response

Is appeal accelerated? Yes (original proceeding).

If motion to extend time:

Original due date: March 17, 2016

Number of extensions granted: 1 Current Due D ate: April 1, 2016

Date Requested: April 8 , 2016

Ordered that motion i s:

 Granted

If document is to be filed, document due: April 8 , 2016.

 Denied

 Dismissed ( e.g. , want of jurisdiction, moot)

 Other: _____________________________________

Judge ’ s signature:

_

/s/ Evelyn V. Keyes

 the Court

Date: April 6, 2016
Order entered January 8, 2021

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-20-00847-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF N.K.R.M., A CHILD

On Appeal from the 256th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DF-17-20137

ORDER

As directed to do so, appellant has filed written verification he has made 

payment arrangements with the court reporter for preparation of the reporter’s 

record. Accordingly, we ORDER Glenda Finkley, Official Court Reporter for the 

256th Judicial District Court, to file the reporter’s record no later than January 26, 

2021.

/s/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE
Exhibit 32

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 Public Media Works, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the
quarter ending May 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I Al Hayes certify in my capacity as Chief Executive Officer and principal financial officer, 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, 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 Company.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has hereunto signed as of
July 15, 2009.



|                                                       
|-------------------------------------------------------
|/s/    Al Hayes                                        
|Al Hayes                                               
|Chief Executive Officer and principal financial officer

A signed original 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.
DISMISS and Opinion Filed April 20, 2021 

# S

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-20-00755-CV SAM C. TAMBORELLO, Appellant V. TOWN OF HIGHLAND P ARK, TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 160th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC-19-06613 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Burns, Jus tice Goldstein, and Justice Smit h Opinion by Chief Justice Burns Under Texas law, an appeal may b e taken from a final judgment t hat disposes of all parties and claims or an interlocutory order as permitte d by statute. See Jack B. Anglin Co., Inc. v. Tipps , 842 S.W.2d 266, 272 (Tex. 1992). The appeal here challenges the trial court’s or der denying appellant’s motion t o reconsider the dismissal of his claims against appellee. As reflected in the record, the underlying suit was filed by appellant again st appellee and several other parties. The claims against appellee were dismissed pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 91a, but they were not severed from the remaining claims. See T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 91a–2– (authorizing dismissal of baseless causes of action); Aviation Composite Techs., Inc. v. CLB Corp. , 131 S.W3d 181, 187 n.5 (Tex. A pp.—Fort Worth 2004, no pet.) ( “[A] trial court may sever dismissed claims from remaining claims in order to render an otherwise interlocutory judgmen t final and appealable.”). Because the appealed order did not dispose of all parties and c laims and no statute authorizes an appeal from an interlocutory order granti ng a rule 91a motion to dismiss, we questioned our jurisdiction over the appeal. See In re Farmers Tex. Cty. Mut. Ins. Co. , 604 S.W.3d 421, 429 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2019, orig. proceeding). Although we directed appellant to file a letter b rief addressing our concern and cautioned that failure to do so by March 5, 2021 co uld result in dismissal of the appeal without further no tice, appellant failed to compl y. Accordingly, as the record before us does not demonstrate our jurisdiction, we dism iss the appeal. See
T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 42.3(a).

200755F.P05 /Robert D. Burns, III/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III CHIEF JUSTICE–3– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT SAM C. TAMBORELLO, Appellant
No. 05-20-00755-CV V. TOWN OF HIGHLAND PARK, TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 160th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC-19-06613. Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Burns, Justices Goldstein and Smith participating. In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal.
We ORDER that appellee Town of Highland Park, Texas recover its costs, if any, of this appeal from a ppellant Sam C. Tamborello.
Judgment entered April 20, 2021.
#### Ex parte James LEE.

No. 27610.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 20, 1955.

No attorney on appeal for appellant.

Leon Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

MORRISON, Presiding 'Judge.

Relator, an inmate of the Texas Prison System, seeks his release by writ- of .habeas corpus alleging that the cumulation of the, sentences which he is serving is defective.

- The writ was granted,by. the-Honorable Langston King, Judge of the Criminal District Court No. 2 of Harris ’County, and made returnable to this Court in accordance with Article Í19, Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P.

From the certified copies q£ the-judgment and sentences forwarded to this .Court, we learn the following: • - ■ -

On September 9, 1940, in Cause No. 49,-096 in the Criminal District Court No. 2 of Harris County, the relator plead guilty to the offense of robbery by assault and his punishment was assessed at ten years.

On the same day *in the same court*in Cause No. 49,098, the relator plead guilty to the offense of robbery by assault and his punishment was assessed at ten years. The sentence in-this ’cause ’cdncludés’ -with this order: “Sentenced cumulative with 49096.” This order is sufficient and effective to cumulate these two sentences. Ex parte Snow, 151 Tex.Cr.R. 640, 209 S.W.2d 931.

On the same day- *in thé sanie - b'oúrt*in Cause No. 49,102, the relator plead guilty to still another offense of robbery by assault and his punishment was assessed at five years. The sentence in thiS!'caiisé concludes with this order: “Sentenced cumtfl'a-tive with 49098.” This’ order *is-*sufficient and effective. Ex parte Snow, supra..“ ■'

Relator has not shown that he has served the twenty-five years imposed uppn him by these three Harris County sentences and is therefore not entitled to discharge. We will not therefore pass upon ¡the sufficiency of the provision attempting, to,.cumulate other sentences by virtue of which relator is confined.

The relief prayed for is denied.

DAVIDSON, Judge

(dissenting).

My brethren reach the conclusion that a sentence is cumulated with that óf áhofheír *138case, when .no other identification of that case is given save and except by a number, with ño reference whatsoever as to the court' in' which that sentence was rendered or the name of the accused against whom the sentence was passed.

The conclusion of my brethren is founded upon the case of Ex parte Snow, 151 Tex.Cr.R. 640, 209 S.W.2d 931.

My views are stated in the dissenting opinion of the late Judge Hawkins in the Snow case'. The correctness of the views there 'expressed is unassailable. They should be adopted as the opinion of this court, and the Snow case should be overruled.
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 Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
 
 
 Docket Nos.Longbow BESS, LLC
EG24-27-000.Danish Fields Storage, LLC
EG24-28-000.Talen Conemaugh LLC
EG24-29-000.Talen Keystone LLC
EG24-30-000.Sparta Solar, LLC
EG24-31-000.Jade Meadow LLC
EG24-32-000.Pleasant Valley Solar LLC
EG24-33-000.Flat Ridge 4 Wind, LLC
EG24-34-000.Flat Ridge 4 Wind Holdings LLC
EG24-35-000.Flat Ridge 5 Wind Energy LLC
EG24-36-000.Flat Ridge 5 Wind Energy Holdings LLC
EG24-37-000.River Fork Solar, LLC
EG24-38-000.NMRD Data Center II, LLC
EG24-39-000.NMRD Data Center III, LLC
EG24-40-000.True North Solar, LLC
EG24-41-000.Cutlass Solar II, LLC
EG24-42-000.Grimes County Solar Project LLC
EG24-43-000.Ben Milam Solar 2 LLC
EG24-44-000.Quartz Solar, LLC
EG24-45-000.Northern Orchard Solar PV, LLC
EG24-46-000.Elkhart County Solar Project, LLC
EG24-47-000.Kiowa County Solar Project, LLC
EG24-48-000.Martin County Solar Project, LLC
EG24-49-000.Martin County II Solar Project, LLC
EG24-50-000.
 Take notice that during the month of January 2024, the status of the above-captioned entities as Exempt Wholesale Generators became effective by operation of the Commission's regulations. 18 CFR 366.7(a) (2023). Dated: February 5, 2024. Debbie-Anne A. Reese, Acting Secretary.


[FR Doc. 2024-02721 Filed 2-8-24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
#### Johnson, d. b. a. A. L. Johnson Construction Co., Appellee, *v.*P. J. C., Inc., Appellant.

(No. 27520

Decided April 26, 1939.)

*Mr. Walter K. Sibbald,*for appellee.

*Mr. Sol Goodman,*for appellant.

It is ordered and adjudged that said appeal as of right be, and the same hereby is, dismissed for the reason no debatable constitutional question is involved in said cause.

*Appeal dismissed.*

Weygandt, C. J.¿ Day, Zimmerman, Williams, Myers, Matthias and Hart, JJ., concur.