alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
AFS-14-054-E December 23, 2013

Exemption No. 10908 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2013-1018

Ms. Lutfije Taipovic Parent of Leila Taipovic

216 Otis Avenue Staten Island, NY 10306

Dear Ms. Taipovic:

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

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter received November 26, 2013, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of Leila Taipovic for an exemption from § 121.311(b)(2)(iii)(B) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). That exemption, if granted, would allow Leila to exceed the specified weight limit for an FAA-approved child restraint system (CAReS, manufactured by AmSafe Corporation) during use of that child restraint system (CRS) aboard a United States (U.S.) aircraft.

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 Leila.

The FAA has issued grants of exemption in circumstances similar in all material respects to those presented in your petition. In Grant of Exemption No. 9834 (copy enclosed), the FAA found that numerous people with physical challenges had previously completed flights using restraint systems that addressed unique physical needs regarding safety, support, and security in the same manner of operations as described in this petition. The FAA further found that the2

petition, if granted, would not set any new precedents regarding the use of restraint systems by persons with disabilities.

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

 they are similar in all material respects to relief previously requested in the enclosed Grant of Exemption No. 9834;

 the reasons stated by the FAA for granting the enclosed Grant of Exemption No. 9834 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. §§ 106(f), 40113, and 44701, which the FAA Administrator has delegated to me, I hereby grant Leila Taipovic an exemption from § 121.311(b). In addition, any air carrier or commercial operator operating under part 121 while Leila is aboard its aircraft is granted an exemption from 14 CFR § 121.311(b) to the extent necessary to allow her to use an FAA-approved CRS aboard a U.S. aircraft.

All operations under this exemption must be conducted with at least one of Leila’s parents or a caregiver accompanying her. Leila Taipovic may only occupy a passenger seat with no passenger seated behind her. In addition, Leila’s parent or caregiver must carry a copy of this exemption and advise the air carrier about the contents of the exemption at least 48 hours before the date of each flight.

This exemption terminates on December 31, 2018, unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Sincerely,

/s/ John Barbagallo Acting Deputy Director, Flights Standards Service

Enclosure
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 22, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-50313

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ADRIAN GAMEZ-DE LA CRUZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. SA-02-CR-550-ALL

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

Before KING, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

 Adrian Gamez-De La Cruz appeals the sentence imposed

following his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United

States after deportation/removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. 

Gamez-De La Cruz contends that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326(b) define separate offenses. He argues that the prior

conviction that resulted in his increased sentence is an element

of a separate offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) that should have

been alleged in his indictment. Gamez-De La Cruz maintains that
No. 03-50313

-2-

he pleaded guilty to an indictment which charged only simple

reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). He argues that his sentence

exceeds the two-year maximum term of imprisonment which may be

imposed for that offense.

In Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235

(1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in

8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of

separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing

provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47. 

Gamez-De La Cruz acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by

Almendarez-Torres, but asserts that the decision has been cast

into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). 

He seeks to preserve his argument for further review. 

Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi,

530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984

(5th Cir. 2000). This court must follow Almendarez-Torres

“unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule

it.” Dabeit, 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and

citation omitted). The judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.

The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of

filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks

that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED. 

AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality 

In accordance with section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C., Appendix 2), announcement is made of this Special Emphasis Panel meeting.

A Special Emphasis Panel (SEP) is a committee of experts selected to conduct scientific reviews of applications related to their areas of expertise. The committee members are drawn from a list of experts and designated to serve for particular individual meetings rather than for extended fixed terms of services.

Substantial segments of this upcoming SEP meeting listed below will be closed to the public in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, section 10(d) of 5 U.S.C., Appendix 2 and 5 U.S.C., 552b(c)(6). Grant applications are to be reviewed and discussed at this meeting. These discussions are likely to include personal information concerning individuals associated with the applications. This information is exempt from mandatory disclosure under the above-cited statutes.

                        1.                         *Name of SEP:*                         Health Research Dissemination & Implementation.                    

*Date:*                         October 23, 2000 (Open from 8 a.m. to 8:15 a.m. and closed for the remainder of the meeting).                    

*Place:*                         6010 Building, 4th Floor, Conference Room D, Rockville, Maryland 20852.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Anyone wishing to obtain a roster of members or minutes of this meeting should contact Ms. Jenny Griffith, Committee Management Officer, Office of Research Review, Education and Policy, AHRQ, 2101 East Jefferson Street, Suite 400, Rockville, Maryland 20852, Telephone (301) 594-1847.                    

Agenda items for this meeting are subject to change as priorities dictate.

Dated: October 2, 2000.

John M. Eisenberg,

Director.

[FR Doc. 00-25877  Filed 10-6-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160-90-M
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12 - 6261

MARLON ANDRE WILSON ,

Plaintiff

– Appellant ,

v. THE UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION ,

Defendant

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Alexandria
. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. ( 1:12

- cv - 00084

- JCC

- IDD )

Submitted : June 26, 2012 Decided: July 3, 2012

Before DUNCAN, DAVIS, and WYNN , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
. Marlon Andre Wilson, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2

PER CURIAM:

Marlon Andre Wilson appeals the district court ’ s order dismissing his p etition for a writ of mandamus pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915A (2006) . We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Wilson v. United States Parole Comm’n , No. 1:12

- cv - 00084

- JCC

- IDD (E.D. Va. Jan. 31, 2012) . 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
|                                                                                                                   
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                                   
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                                                     
|View History: Annual                                                                                               
|View History: Annual                                                                                               
|View History:                                                                                                      
|                                                                                                                   
|No chart available.                                                                                                
|No chart available.                                                                                                
|                                                                                                                   
|                                                                                                                   
|Calif--San Joaquin Basin Onshore Natural Gas Liquids Lease Condensate, Proved Reserves Extensions (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                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 0     
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | --     | --     | --     | --    
|2020's                                                                                                                            | --     | --     |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = 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
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-22-00717-CV

In re Irwin Pentland

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM TRAVIS COUNTY

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Relator Irwin Pentland, an indigent inmate appearing pro se, has filed a petition 

for writ of mandamus seeking to have this Court order the Travis County district courts to “give 

consideration to his properly made pleadings and to do so timely.” Relator did not file a record 

with his petition, or with his prior petition of which he requests we take judicial notice, but 

instead filed an appendix with each petition. Cf. Tex. R. App. P. 52.7 (requiring relator to file 

record and listing its required contents); see also id. R. 52.3(k) (requiring relator to include 

appendix with petition and listing its required contents). Because relator attempts to use the 

appendix as a mechanism for attaching what should be included in the mandamus record, he 

must comply with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.7(a)(1). See id. R. 52.7(a)(1), (2)

(requiring relator to file “a certified or sworn copy of every document that is material to the 

relator’s claim for relief and that was filed in any underlying proceeding” and “a properly 

authenticated transcript” of relevant testimony and exhibits from underlying proceeding or “a 

statement that no testimony was adduced in connection with the matter complained”); In re 

Tidwell, No. 06-21-00117-CV, 2022 WL 163815, at *1 (Tex. App.—Texarkana Jan. 19, 2022, 

orig. proceeding) (mem. op.).
2

Because the record in a mandamus proceeding is assembled by the parties, we 

must strictly enforce the authentication requirements of Rule 52 to ensure the integrity of the 

mandamus record. See Tidwell, 2022 WL 163815, at *1; In re Smith, No. 05-19-00268-CV, 

2019 WL 1305970, at *1–2 (Tex. App.—Dallas Mar. 22, 2019, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.).

While some of the documents in relator’s appendix are file-stamped, the September 17, 2022

letter on which he relies for relief—which letter requests a hearing on his enforcement action and 

the issuance of a subpoena in support of the enforcement hearing—is not file-stamped, certified, 

or sworn. Additionally, relator has neither filed a properly authenticated hearing transcript nor 

represented that no relevant testimony was adduced in connection with this matter. Relator has 

thus not filed a record in compliance with Rule 52.7. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.7(a). It is the 

relator’s burden to provide this Court with a sufficient record to establish the right to mandamus 

relief. See Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding); In re Smith,

No. 03-14-00478-CV, 2014 WL 4079922, at *1 (Tex. App.—Austin Aug. 13, 2014, orig. 

proceeding) (mem. op.). Because relator did not comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate 

Procedure in the ways noted above, we deny the petition for a writ of mandamus without 

prejudice to his refiling a petition in compliance with the applicable rules. Tex. R. App. 

P. 52.7(a)(1), 52.8(a).

__________________________________________

Thomas J. Baker, Justice

Before Justices Baker, Kelly, and Smith

Filed: January 19, 2023
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER ON MOTIONS

November 7, 2008 Revision

Cause number: 01-18-01011-CV

Style: Eduardo Nonoalsi Bravo v. Parkhollow Place Property Owners

Date motions filed*: June 6, 2019

Type of motions: Letter-Motion for Extension of Time to File Motion for Extension

of Time to File Notice of Appeal with Extension of Time to File NOA

Party filing motions: Pro se appellant Eduardo Nonoalsi Bravo

Document to be filed: Appellant’s Brief

If motion to extend time:

Original due dates: 9/13/18 (NOA deadline); 5/24/19 (extension)

Number of extensions granted: 0 Current Due Dates: 6/10/19 (15-day grace period

for extension)

Dates Requested: 9/25/18 (NOA filing date); 6/6/19 (extension)

Ordered that motions are:

 Granted

If document is to be filed, document due: July 11, 2019.

 Denied

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

 Other: _ Appellant’s letter-motion for an extension, construed as the implied motion

for extension of time to file his notice of appeal, is granted because his notice of

appeal was filed on September 25, 2018, within the 15-day grace period ending on 

September 28, 2018, and his motion provides a reasonable explanation for the 12-day 

delay. See TEX. R. APP. P. 10.5(b), 26.1(b), 26.3; Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 

617 (Tex. 1997); Hone v. Hanafin, 104 S.W.3d 884, 886-87 (Tex. 2003). To the extent

that appellant’s letter-motion itself also includes an extension to file this motion, that 

extension is also granted because it was filed on June 6, 2019, within 15 days of the 

May 24, 2019 deadline set by this Court’s May 14, 2019 Order. Accordingly, the Court 

orders appellant to file appellant’s brief on the merits, that complies with Rule 38.1, by 

July 11, 2019. See TEX. R. APP. P. 2, 38.1, 38.6(d).

Judge’s signature: _/s/ Laura C. Higley____________________________________________

 x Acting individually Acting for the Court

Date: ___June 11, 2019___
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5449 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on mixtures of lambdacyhalothrin. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 7, 2012 

Mr. MEEHAN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on mixtures 

of lambda-cyhalothrin. 

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

3 SECTION 1. MIXTURES OF LAMBDA-CYHALOTHRIN. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.02.09 of the Har5 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

6 mixtures of lambda-cyhalothrin) is amended by striking 

7 the date in the effective period column and inserting ‘‘12/ 

8 31/2015’’. 

9 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

10 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5449 IH

1 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

2 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
**CONSENT
      OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**








Board
      of
      Directors and the Shareholders


Tennessee
      Valley Financial Holdings, Inc. and Subsidiary








We
      consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements on
      Forms S-3 and S-8 of Tennessee Valley Financial Holdings, Inc. and Subsidiary
      of
      our report dated April 2, 2007, with respect to the consolidated financial
      statements of Tennessee Valley Financial Holdings, Inc. and Subsidiary which
      reports appear in Tennessee Valley Financial Holdings Inc.’s 2006 Annual Report
      on Form 10-KSB.





/s/
      Dixon
      Hughes PLLC





Asheville,
      North Carolina


April
      2,
      2007
## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S O F T E X A S NO. AP -76,950

EX P ARTE SCOT TIE DWAYNE HADNOT, App licant
ON AP P LICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORP US CAUSE NO. 47,179-A IN THE 30 DISTRICT COURT T H F ROM WICHITA COUNTY
Per curiam . O P I N I O N Pursuant to the provisi o n s o f Ar t icle 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedur e, the cler k of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habea s corpus. Ex parte Y oung , 4 1 8 S
. W
. 2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of one count of possession of a c ontrolled substance and one c ount of eva ding arre st and sente nced to f orty year s’ and eighteen months’ impr i s o n m ent, respe ctively
. The Seventh Court of Appea ls aff irmed the controlled substance conviction. Hadnot v. State , No. 07-10-00296- CR (Tex. App.—Amarillo J un. 13, 2011) (unpublished). A pplicant contends that his appellate counsel rende red ineffe ctive a s s is ta n c e b e c a u s e c o u n s e l failed to timely

notify Applicant of his rights to pursue a pro- se petition for discr etionary revie w.2

Appellate counsel filed an aff idavit with the trial court. Ba sed on that aff idavit, the trial court has entered finding s of fac t and conclusions of law that appellate counsel failed to notify Applicant that he had a right to file a pro-se petition for discretionar y revie w The trial court rec ommends that relief be grante d. Ex parte W

ilson , 956 S.W .2d 25 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997). We find, there fore , that Applicant is entitled to the opportunity to file an out-of-time petition for discretionar

y revie w of the j u d gment of the Seventh Court of Appea ls in Cause No. 07-10- 020296-CR that aff

irmed his conviction in Cause No. 47 , 179-A from the 30 District Court of t h Wichita County
. Applicant shall file his petition for discretionar y revie w with this Court within 30 day s of the dateon which this Court’s mandate issues.

Deliver ed: J anuar

y 16, 2013 Do not publish
<PAGE>










                                  EXHIBIT 10.3








<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 10.3


                 SUBSIDIARIES OF WAYNE SAVINGS BANCSHARES, INC.

       Wayne Savings Community Bank, An Ohio savings and loan association



                  SUBSIDIARIES OF WAYNE SAVINGS COMMUNITY BANK

                  Village Savings Bank, a Federal savings bank
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-07-00181-CR

Richard Eugene Pigg, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY, 27TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 60182, HONORABLE JOE CARROLL, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Richard Eugene Pigg seeks to appeal his conviction for engaging in organized

criminal activity. The trial court has certified that Pigg waived the right of appeal. See Tex. R. App.

P. 25.2(a)(2); Monreal v. State, 99 S.W.3d 615, 622 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003); see also Blanco v.

State, 18 S.W.3d 218, 220 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). The appeal is dismissed. See Tex. R. App. P.

25.2(d).

___________________________________________

David Puryear, Justice

Before Chief Justice Law, Justices Puryear and Henson

Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction

Filed: April 11, 2007

Do Not Publish