alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
June 25, 2015

Mr. Brian Staveley

133 Palmetto Lane Largo, FL 33770

Dear Mr. Staveley:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) . It explains why we can not process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can Not Process Your Request

We entered your June 16, exemption request into the public docket (No. FAA-2015-2281), but we are unable to process your request any further. The information you sent does not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of the following:

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief.

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would benefit the public as a whole.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brenda Robeson Program Analyst, Airmen and Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
#### EDWARDS v. STATE.

No. 26568.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 3, 1953.

No attorney on appeal for appellant.

Wesley Dice, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

MORRISON, Judge.

The offense is the unlawful possession of whiskey for the purpose of sale in a dry area; the punishment, a fine of $250.

The record is before us without a statement of facts or bills of exception.

All the proceedings appearing regular and nothing being presented for our review, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4628 

To extend student loan interest rates for undergraduate Federal Direct 

Stafford Loans. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 25, 2012 

Mrs. BIGGERT introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce, and in addition to the Committees on Energy and Commerce and the Budget, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such 

provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To extend student loan interest rates for undergraduate 

Federal Direct Stafford Loans. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Interest Rate Reduc5 tion Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. INTEREST RATE EXTENSION. 

7 Subparagraph (D) of section 455(b)(7) of the Higher 

8 Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1087e(b)(7)(D)) is 

9 amended— 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4628 IH

1 (1) in the matter preceding clause (i), by strik2 ing ‘‘2012’’ and inserting ‘‘2013’’; and 

3 (2) in clause (v), by striking ‘‘2012’’ and insert4 ing ‘‘2013’’. 

5 SEC. 3. REPEALING PREVENTION AND PUBLIC HEALTH 

6 FUND. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 4002 of the Patient Pro8 tection and Affordable Care Act (42 U.S.C. 300u–11) is 

9 repealed. 

10 (b) RESCISSION OF UNOBLIGATED FUNDS.—Of the 

11 funds made available by such section 4002, the unobli12 gated balance is rescinded. 

13 SEC. 4. COMPLIANCE WITH STATUTORY PAY-AS-YOU-GO 

14 ACT OF 2010. 

15 The budgetary effects of this Act, for the purpose of 

16 complying with the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010, 

17 shall be determined by reference to the latest statement 

18 titled ‘‘Budgetary Effects of PAYGO Legislation’’ for this 

19 Act, submitted for printing in the Congressional Record 

20 by the Chairman of the House Budget Committee, pro21 vided that such statement has been submitted prior to the 

22 vote on passage. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-19-00051-CV

IN THE ESTATE OF JANICE LEE WILHELM, DECEASED

From the 369th District Court

Leon County, Texas

Trial Court No. O-12-00012

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellants Howard Wayne Farmer and Jennifer Christine Davis and Appellee 

Christine Bain have filed an “Agreed Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice.” The parties 

state that “[a]ll matters of fact and things in controversy between all of the Parties have 

been fully and finally compromised and settled by the Parties.” Appellants therefore 

request that we dismiss with prejudice all claims that have been or could have been 

brought by them against Appellee, and Appellee requests that we dismiss with prejudice 

all claims that have been or could have been brought by her against Appellants. The 

parties then request that we dismiss this appeal and tax costs against the party incurring 

same.
In re Estate of Wilhelm Page 2

We have no authority to dismiss the suit in the trial court and, at the same time,

dismiss the appeal. We have the authority, however, to vacate the trial court’s judgment 

and then dismiss the case by agreement of the parties. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(2)(A); 

43.2(e); Young Materials Corp. v. Smith, 4 S.W.3d 84, 84–85 (Tex. App.—Waco 1999, no pet.) 

(per curiam) (mem. op.); see also Garcia v. Meece, No. 10-19-00052-CV, 2020 WL 1809466, 

at *1 (Tex. App.—Waco Apr. 8, 2020, no pet.) (mem. op.).

Accordingly, the parties’ “Agreed Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice” is granted to 

the extent authorized. The trial court’s Order signed on February 1, 2019, is vacated, and 

the case is dismissed with prejudice. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(2)(A); 43.2(e). Costs of 

appeal are taxed against the party incurring same. 

Because the Court was unable to grant the entirety of the parties’ motion, the Court 

has endeavored to implement the substance of the parties’ agreed motion to achieve the 

same result. If the parties determine that the judgment of the Court does not accomplish 

the parties’ intended result, a timely motion for rehearing must be filed that addresses 

the manner in which the Court can implement the agreement of the parties within the 

limitations of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. See id. R. 42.1; 49.1. 

MATT JOHNSON

Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Johnson, and 

Justice Smith

Vacated and dismissed
In re Estate of Wilhelm Page 3

Opinion delivered and filed July 20, 2022

[CV06]
|                                                                                                                                 
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                                                 
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                                                                   
|View History: Annual                                                                                                             
|View History: Annual                                                                                                             
|View History:                                                                                                                    
|                                                                                                                                 
|New Mexico - East Nonassociated Natural Gas, Wet After Lease Separation, Reserves Extensions and Discoveries (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                                                 
|                                                                                                                                 
|New Mexico - East Nonassociated Natural Gas, Wet After Lease Separation, Reserves Extensions and Discoveries (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                                                 

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2010's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        | 27     | 164    | 688    | 331   
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 113    | 694    |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 12/30/2022                                                                                                         
|Next Release Date: 12/29/2023
|                                                                                      
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                      
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                        
|View History: Annual                                                                  
|View History: Annual                                                                  
|View History:                                                                         
|                                                                                      
|New Mexico - East Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Reserves Divestitures (Million Barrels)
|                                                                                      
|                                                                                      
|New Mexico - East Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Reserves Divestitures (Million Barrels)
|                                                                                      

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2000's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 15    
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 22     | 57     | 45     | 10     | 5      | 46     | 11     | 34     | 13     | 70    
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 31     | 70     |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 12/30/2022                                                                                                         
|Next Release Date: 12/29/2023
```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 56 (Thursday, March 22, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16890-16891]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-6838]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Second Meeting: RTCA Special Committee 226, Audio Systems and 
Equipment

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), U.S. Department of 
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of meeting RTCA Special Committee 226, Audio Systems and 
Equipment.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of the 
second meeting of RTCA Special Committee 226, Audio Systems and 
Equipment.

DATES: The meeting will be held April 17-19, 2012, from 9 a.m.-5 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at RTCA, Inc., 1150 18th Street 
NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The RTCA Secretariat, 1150 18th Street 
NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036, or by telephone at (202) 833-
9339, fax at (202) 833-9434, or Web site at http://www.rtca.org.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.), notice is 
hereby given for a meeting of Special Committee 213. The agenda will 
include the following:

April 17-19, 2012

 Welcome and Administrative Remarks
 Introductions
 Agenda Overview
 Review previous action items
 Finalize and approve changes to TOR
 Solicit proposals for further changes to DO-214
 Continue discussion on the following:
     Risks of usage of adaptive technology during test
     Proposed committee letter to invite additional headsets, 
MIC's and CVR manufacturers
     Addition of noise test requirement to the vibration test 
variable nature of Oxygen Mask Microphone and Hand Microphone 
performance in the marketplace
     Proposal to remove CVR Area Microphone requirements from 
standard in lieu of ED-112
     FAA info letter addressing use of Active Noise Reduction 
(ANR) and Powered ANR headsets to discuss concern of EMI, EMC effects 
on power leads affecting communications
     Support from NTSB with regards to ANR
     Sensitivity versus output power as they correlate with its 
specified ratings
 Continue review of DO-214 and draft updates/changes
 Draft language for noise test requirement to combine with the 
vibration test
 Other Business
 Establish Agenda for Next Meeting

[[Page 16891]]

 Adjourn

    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space 
availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public 
may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present 
statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in 
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Members of the public may 
present a written statement to the committee at any time.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on March 15, 2012.
John Raper,
Manager, Business Operations Branch, Federal Aviation Administration.
[FR Doc. 2012-6838 Filed 3-21-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
```
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-41031

MARY LYNCH, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, EMMITT VENABLE, and ANN MARRS, Defendants-Appellants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (6:96-CV-871) September 4, 1998

Before POLITZ, Chief Jud ge, EMILIO M. GARZA and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: * Defendants-Appellants appe a l an adverse judgment on jury verdict in the

action by Mary Lynch. Having considered the briefs and oral arguments of
counsel, and pertinent parts of the record, and fi nding no reversible error, the judgment appealed is AFFIRMED.
|                                                               
|---------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                               
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                 
|View History: Annual                                           
|View History: Annual                                           
|View History:                                                  
|                                                               
|Arkansas Natural Gas Processed in Arkansas (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                               
|                                                               
|Arkansas Natural Gas Processed in Arkansas (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                               

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2010's                                                                                                                            |        | 5,611  | 6,872  | 7,781  | 8,058  | 7,084  | 5,410  | 4,096  | 3,611  | 3,430 
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 2,860  | 2,477  | 2,399  |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 7/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 8/30/2024
NOTICE 

1273240 

NO. 74208 

THE STATE OF TEXAS IN THE 149TH DISTRICT COURT 

 

VS. OF 

 

 BRODRICK MICHAEL JAMES BRAZORIA COUNTY, TEXAS 

NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT ON APPEAL 

 ON THE 28TH day of JANUARY, 2015, the defendant in the above styled and 

numbered cause excepted to the order of the Court in said cause and gave Notice of Appeal to 

the Court of Appeals, FIRST Judicial District. 

Date of Judgment or Other Order Appealed From: 1/28/15 

Date of Sentencing: 1/28/15 

Name of Trial Court Judge: TERRI HOLDER 

Name of Court Reporter: ROBIN RIOS 

Name and Address of Defense Attorney on Appeal: 

 KEITH ALLEN (APPOINTED) 

 2360 CR 94, SUITE 106 

 PEARLAND, TEXAS 77584 

Name and Address of Attorney for the State on Appeal: 

 Jeri Yenne, District Attorney 

 Brazoria County Courthouse 

 111 East Locust, Suite 408-A 

 Angleton, TX 77515 

Defendant Incarcerated? YES 

Motion for New Trial Filed? NO 

Appeal Bond: NO Date N/A 

Offense and Punishment: DELIVERY OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE - ENHANCED; 

FORTY FIVE (45) YEARS 

 RHONDA BARCHAK, District Clerk 

 By /S/ KATHLEEN MCDOUGALD 

 Deputy 

 FILED IN 1st COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 2/2/2015 11:55:30 AM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk
P. 1 

# OAR Box 1834 Prepped by Keeia Richards

Document

Number: 

# 47 ) IV-H-01 Docket Number: 

# A-90-0 7

Printed 11/10/2008 2:14:35 PM

Sheet 47 of 61P. 2 

## /4-7O-07

NOT E TO : Tro y Hillie

r Offic e o f Managemen

t an d Budge t FROM : Jud

y Gray , Senio r

Projec t Manage r Specia l Regulator

y Project s Branch , OM S SUBJECT : Fuel s an

d Fuel Additive s (F/FA ) Pr o Fina l Rule Draf

t Document s 

## Apr

* 7 . 19^[J) r 

## I? EJUJL ^ 

# J MA Y Lb 199

4 j^P/ s ai R DOCKE T

A s promise d yesterda

y b y Glen n Passavant , her

e ar e th e mos t curren t drafts o f th e fina l rul e preambl e an

d RIA/RF A fo r the F/F A healt h effects testin g program . The regulator y tex t an d IC R will follow shortly . A s I' msur

e Glen n explained , w e ar

e sendin g thes e drafts t

o giv e yo u a reasonabl e opportunit

y t o review an

d understan d the rule , considerin g tha t ou r cour t ordere d deadlin e o

f Ma y 27t h (jus t extende d fro

mApri l 29th ) will no

t allo w th e customar y OM B review perio d afte

r workgicup closure . Whil e som e additiona

l change s wil l n o doub t

b e made , w

e thin k dies e document s ar

e ver y clos e t o thei r fina l form . I'l l b e gla

d t o discus s the progra

mwit h yo u or answe r question s yo

u ma y hav e about it . Pleas e feel fre

e t o cal l m e a t 313-668-423 1 (FA

X 313-741-7816) .
cc : Glenn Passavan

t
#### BODIFORD v. STATE.

No. 24207.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 5, 1949.

*224No appearance for appellant.

Ernest S. Goens, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

The appeal is from a conviction for burglary with a sentence of two years in the penitentiary.

The trial was to a jury and the evidence was sufficient to support their verdict. The record contains no bills of exception and no exceptions were taken to the court’s charge. No brief was filed in the case and we are not informed of any contention made which would support a reversal.

Finding noVerror, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

MELORA DOUGLAS

,

Appellant

,

v. Case No. 5D 17

- 757

U .S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,

LAKE FLORENCE HOME OWNERS

ASSOCIATION AND MERS

,

Appellee s

.

________________________________/

Opinion filed May 9, 2017

Appeal from the Circuit Court

for Orange County,

Donald A. Myers, Jr. , Judge.

Melo ra Douglas, Orlando

, pro se

.

Kimberly Hopkins, of Shapiro, Fishman &

Gache, LLP

, Tampa , for Appellee U.S.

Bank

.

No appearance for other Appellees.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.315(a).

COHEN, C.J.

, WALLIS and LAMBERT , J

. J. , concur.
US EPA, "Read the Label First" Interactive Pesticide Product Label <<Put cursor on blue text for descriptions of label sections.>>

http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/kids/hometour/label/read.htm [3/2/2011 8:24:43 AM]