alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

PHILLIP TAVARRIS COPELAND,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D18-1063

[March 14, 2019]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm 

Beach County; John S. Kastrenakes, Judge; L.T. Case No. 

502015CF007782AXXXMB.

Jack A. Fleischman of Fleischman & Fleischman, P.A., West Palm 

Beach, for appellant.

Ashley B. Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Jonathan P. 

Picard, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

GERBER, C.J., TAYLOR and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
AFS-11-044-E 

Dec 21 2010 

 Exemption No. 10153A 

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2010-0895 

Mr. Thomas A. Johnson 

Commercial Pilot and Flight Instructor 

10156 New Devon Street 

Munster, IN 46321 

Dear Mr. Johnson: 

This letter is to inform you that we have denied your petition to amend Exemption No. 10153. 

It explains the basis for our decision and describes its effect. 

The Basis for Our Decision 

By letter dated October 30, 2010, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) 

for an amendment to Exemption No. 10153. That exemption from § 91.109(a) and (b)(3) of 

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) allows you to conduct certain flight 

instruction in Beechcraft Bonanza, Debonair, Baron, and TravelAir aircraft equipped with a 

functioning throwover control wheel instead of functioning dual controls. The current 

exemption limits operations to flights for completion of the flight review required by § 61.56 

and for accomplishing recency of experience as required by § 61.57. You request an 

amendment to the conditions and limitations of Exemption No. 10153 that would allow flight 

instruction for the commercial pilot rating. 

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

in the Federal Register because the exemption would not set a precedent, and any delay in 

acting on this petition would be detrimental to you. 

The FAA has determined that operations under this exemption may be conducted for 

completion of the flight review required by § 61.56 and for accomplishing recency of 
 2

experience as required by § 61.57. Operations under this exemption do not include flight 

instruction toward a pilot certificate. 

The training for a commercial pilot certificate includes ten takeoff and landing tasks along 

with four tasks relating to slow flight and stalls. You have failed to explain how granting the 

exemption would not adversely affect safety. According to the National Transportation 

Safety Board’s Annual Review of U.S. General Aviation Accident Data 2005, about half of 

general aviation accidents occur during takeoff or landing. Extensive takeoff and landing 

training is required in preparation for the commercial practical test. Allowing flight 

instruction for a commercial pilot license in an aircraft equipped with a functioning throwover 

control wheel instead of functioning dual controls would put your student in a high risk 

environment without the instructor’s ability to assist in maneuvering the airplane. 

Our Decision 

In consideration of the foregoing, I find that a grant of the amendment to Exemption No. 10153 

would not be in the public interest. Therefore, under the authority contained in 

49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator has delegated to me, I hereby deny 

your petition for an amendment to Exemption No. 10153. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

Raymond Towles 

Acting Director, Flight Standards 

 Service
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 23.1

                    CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

The Board of Directors
J. Crew Group, Inc.:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the previously filed registration
statement on Form S-8 of J. Crew, Group Inc. 1997 Stock Option Plan of our
report dated March 25, 2002, except as to note 6, which is as of April 17, 2002,
relating to the consolidated balance sheets of J. Crew Group, Inc. and
subsidiaries as of February 2, 2002 and February 3, 2001, and the related
consolidated statements of operations, cash flows, and changes in stockholders'
deficit for each of the years in the three-year period ended February 2, 2002
and the related schedule, which report appears in this February 2, 2002 annual
report on Form 10-K of J. Crew Group, Inc.

KPMG LLP

New York, New York
April 18, 2002
Exhibit 32.2  Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Subsections (a) and (b) of
Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)  Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United
States Code), the undersigned officer of Vertis, Inc., a Delaware corporation
(the Company), hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge, that: The Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2004(the Report)
of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company.  Dated: February 25, 2005
  /s/  DEAN D. DURBINName:  Dean
  D. DurbinTitle:   President and Chief
  Financial Officer  The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to
section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of
section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code) and is not being
filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
Exhibit 32.1

Certification

of

Periodic Financial Report

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

I, John G. Drosdick, Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President of Sunoco, Inc., hereby certify that the Quarterly Report on Form
10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2008 fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the periodic report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of Sunoco, Inc.



|                     |  |                          
|-------------------- |  | -------------------------
|Date: August 7, 2008 |  | /s/ John G. Drosdick     
|                     |  | John G. Drosdick         
|                     |  | Chairman, Chief Executive
|                     |  | Officer and President
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

LEVAR LEE SPENCE,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 160 MM 2017

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 3rd day of January , 201 8

, the Application for Leave to File

Original Process is GRANTED, and the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED.
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5330 

To suspend temporarily the rate of duty on certain leathered footwear for 

women. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 7, 2012 

Ms. BONAMICI introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the rate of duty on certain leathered 

footwear for women. 

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

3 SECTION 1. CERTAIN LEATHERED FOOTWEAR FOR WOMEN. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading: 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5330 IH

‘‘ 9902.01.00 Footwear for women, with 

uppers of leather other 

than of pigskin (other than 

house slippers, work footwear, tennis shoes, basketball shoes, gym shoes, 

training shoes and the like, 

and other than slip-on 

footwear), valued $27/pair 

or higher, such footwear 

which designed to be worn 

in lieu of, but not over, 

other footwear as a protection against water, oil, 

grease or chemicals or cold 

or inclement weather where 

such protection includes 

protection against water 

that is imparted by the use 

of a coated or laminated 

textile fabric (provided for 

in subheading 6403.99.90) Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2015 ’’. 

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

2 subsection (a) applies to articles entered, or withdrawn 

3 from warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day 

4 after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
exv10w71



 






Exhibit 10.71




	 	 	 
	 

	 	November 29, 2005






Mr. Roger T. Staubach

Chairman & CEO

The Staubach Company

15601 Dallas Parkway

Suite 400

Addison, TX 75001




Dear Roger:




          This will confirm the following agreement relating to the deferral of your director’s fees in
2006.



          1. All director’s fees and retainers (“Fees”) payable to you in connection with your service
on the boards of directors (including committees of such boards) of AMR Corporation and American
Airlines, Inc. for the period January 1, 2006 through December 31, 2006, will be deferred and paid
to you in accordance with this letter agreement.



          2. Fees will be converted to Stock Equivalent Units in accordance with the Directors’ Stock
Equivalent Purchase Plan, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A (the “Plan”).



          3. On the 30th business day after the date when you cease to be a
Director of AMR
Corporation, the Stock Equivalent Units accrued in 2006 pursuant to the Plan will be converted to
cash and paid to you by multiplying the number of such Stock Equivalent Units by the arithmetic
mean of the high and the low of AMR stock (“fair market value”) during the month when you ceased to
be a Director of AMR Corporation.



          4. In the event of your death, the number of Stock Equivalent Units as of your date of death
will be multiplied by the fair market value of AMR stock during the calendar month immediately
preceding your death, and the amount paid to Marianne Staubach. The payment contemplated by this
paragraph 4 will be made on the 30th business day following the date of your death.



 









 





          If the foregoing is satisfactory to you, please indicate by signing one of the originals (two
are enclosed) and returning it to me.



	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	Very truly yours,	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	Charles D. MarLett

Corporate Secretary	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	Accepted and agreed:
	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	/s/ Roger T. Staubach
 


	 	 
	 	 
	Roger T. Staubach
	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	12/14/04
 

Date
<PAGE>


                                  EXHIBIT 31.1

I, Stephan Kuppenheimer, certify that:

         1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K, and all reports on
Form 8-K containing distribution or servicing reports filed in respect of
periods included in the year covered by this annual report, of Merrill Lynch
Depositor, Inc., on behalf of PreferredPLUS Trust Series VER-1;

         2. Based on my knowledge, the information in these reports, taken as a
whole, does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state
a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading as of the
last day of the period covered by this annual report;

         3. Based on my knowledge, the distribution or servicing information
required to be provided to the depositor by the trustee under the pooling and
servicing, or similar, agreement, for inclusion in these reports is included in
these reports;

         4. I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the
depositor and the trustee under the pooling and servicing, or similar, agreement
and based upon my knowledge and the annual compliance review required under that
agreement, and except as disclosed in the reports, the depositor and trustee
have each fulfilled its obligations under that agreement; and

         5. The reports disclose all significant deficiencies relating to the
compliance by the depositor or trustee with the minimum servicing or similar
standards based upon the report provided by an independent public accountant,
after conducting a review in compliance with the Uniform Single Attestation
Program for Mortgage Bankers or similar procedure, as set forth in the pooling
or servicing, or similar, agreement, that is included in these reports.

         In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on
information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: The Bank of
New York and its officers and agents.


Date: March 29, 2005                   /s/ Stephan Kuppenheimer
                                           --------------------------
                                           Stephan Kuppenheimer
                                           President
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-1667

LAN LIN ZAORSKI,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at 

Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:18-cv-00234-D)

Submitted: September 24, 2019 Decided: September 26, 2019

Before WYNN and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lan Lin Zaorski, Appellant Pro Se. Joshua Bryan Royster, OFFICE OF THE UNITED 

STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Lan Lin Zaorski appeals the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice her 

civil action. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error in the district court’s 

conclusion that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the suit, as Zaorski failed to 

establish standing to raise her claims.∗

 See Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540, 1547-

48 (2016) (describing injury-in-fact requirement); Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 

560-61 (1992) (discussing elements of standing); see also Myers v. Loudoun Cty. Pub.

Sch., 418 F.3d 395, 400 (4th Cir. 2005) (“The right to litigate for oneself . . . does not create 

a coordinate right to litigate for others.”). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s 

judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process. 

AFFIRMED

 ∗ Insofar as Zaorski alleges that the district court was biased in favor of the 

Government in resolving her suit, we find her allegations wholly unsupported by the 

record. See Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994) (“[J]udicial rulings alone 

almost never constitute a valid basis for a bias or partiality motion.”).
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 202 (Wednesday, October 18, 2000)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 62288-62289]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-26766]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 154

[USCG-1999-5149]
RIN 2115-AF79


Response Plans for Marine Transportation-Related Facilities 
Handling Non-Petroleum Oils; Clarification

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Clarification to final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This document clarifies a preamble discussion to a final rule 
published in the Federal Register of June 30, 2000. The rule amended 
Coast Guard regulations requiring response plans for marine 
transportation-related (MTR) facilities that handle, store, or 
transport animal fats or vegetable oils. Specifically, this document 
clarifies the explanation for higher volume ports.

DATES: This document becomes effective on October 18, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions on this clarification or 
the final rule, call Lieutenant Claudia Gelzer, Project Manager, Coast 
Guard, telephone 202-267-1983. For questions on viewing or submitting 
material to the docket, call Dorothy Beard, Chief, Dockets, Department 
of Transportation, telephone 202-366-9329.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Clarification of Preamble to Final Rule

    On June 30, 2000, we published in the Federal Register the final 
rule titled ``Response Plans for Marine Transportation-Related 
Facilities Handling Non-Petroleum Oils'' (USCG-1999-5149)[65 FR 40820]. 
In the preamble to that rule, on page 40822, we stated that higher 
volume port areas were designated based on the availability of response 
equipment on hand in those ports. After that publication, the Coast 
Guard received comments from the affected public requesting 
clarification of our high volume ports discussion.

[[Page 62289]]

    We previously addressed this topic in an interim final rule, 
``Response Plans for Marine Transportation-Related Facilities'' (58 FR 
7330), that was published in the Federal Register on February 5, 1993. 
As stated in the interim rule, higher volume ports were actually 
designated based on the volume of all types of oil transported through 
those ports. Faster response times were established for those ports to 
encourage vessel and facility plan holders to concentrate larger 
quantities of response equipment as close as possible to locations 
having the highest probability of a significant spill incident. Over 
time, the industry has responded by stockpiling larger quantities of 
response equipment in those ports practicable for all plan holders 
regardless of the type of oil cargo carried.

    Dated: October 12, 2000.
Howard L. Hime,
Acting Director of Standards, Marine Safety and Environmental 
Protection.
[FR Doc. 00-26766 Filed 10-17-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2838 

To amend title 46, United States Code, with respect to coastwise 

endorsements and Puerto Rico, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 25, 2013 

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

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To amend title 46, United States Code, with respect to 

coastwise endorsements and Puerto Rico, and for other 

purposes. 

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 ‘‘Puerto Rico Interstate 

5 Commerce Improvement Act of 2013’’. 

6 SEC. 2. COASTWISE ENDORSEMENTS AND PUERTO RICO. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 12120 of title 46, United 

8 States Code, is amended to read as follows: 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2838 IH

1 ‘‘§ 12120. Coastwise endorsements and Puerto Rico 

2 ‘‘(a) EXEMPTION FROM REQUIREMENTS.—With re3 spect to engaging in the coastwise trade, no requirement 

4 under section 12112(a)(2) or section 12132 applies to a 

5 vessel that— 

6 ‘‘(1) is self propelled; 

7 ‘‘(2) is transporting bulk cargo, including 

8 liquified natural gas or liquified petroleum gas bulk 

9 cargo; and 

10 ‘‘(3) is transporting such cargo— 

11 ‘‘(A) to Puerto Rico from another port in 

12 the United States; or 

13 ‘‘(B) from Puerto Rico to another port in 

14 the United States. 

15 ‘‘(b) BULK CARGO DEFINED.—In this section, the 

16 term ‘bulk cargo’ has the meaning given that term in sec17 tion 53101.’’. 

18 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The analysis for chap19 ter 121 of title 46, United States Code, is amended by 

20 striking the item relating to section 12120 and inserting 

21 the following: 

‘‘12120. Coastwise endorsements and Puerto Rico.’’. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Order entered February 16 , 2023

In The 

### Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas** No. 05
- 22
- 00520
- CR JOSEPH MICHAEL MARRA , Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee On Appeal from the 41 6th Judicial District Court Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 416
- 84582
- 2018
O RDER Appellant’s brief is overdue. Appellant’s brief was originally due November 6, 2022. On November 7, 2022, appellant moved for an extension of time to file the b rief; the Court granted the motion on November 8, 2022 and ordered appellant’s brief filed by December 6, 2022. Appellant filed a second motion for extension of time to file the brief on December 6, 2022; on December 8, 2022, the Court granted the motion and ordered appellant’s brief filed by January 5, 2023. On January 5, 2023, appellant filed a third motion for extension of time to file thebrief; on January 9, 2023, the Court granted the motion and ordered appellant’s brief filed by February 6, 2023. In the January 5 , 2023 order, the Court cautioned appellant that if the brief was not filed by February 6, 2023, the Court may abate the case for a hearing in the trial court to determine why the brief has not been filed. As of the date of this order, the brief is more than ten days overdue, and appellant’s counsel has not filed either the brief , a further motion for extension , or otherwise communicated with the Court concerning the brief

.
The Court ORDERS the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine why appellant’s brief has not been filed. In this regard, the trial court shall make appropriate findings and recommendations and determine whether appellant desires to prosecute the appeal, whether appellant has abandoned the appeal, or whether appellant ’s counsel has abandoned the appeal. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P

. 38.8( b ). If the trial court cannot obtain appellant’s presence at the hearing, the trial court shall conduct the hearing in appellant’s absence. See Meza v. State , 742 S.W.2d 708 (Tex. App.

– Corpus Christi 1987, no pet.) (per curiam). If counsel has abandoned the appeal, the trial court is ORDERED to take such measures as may be necessary to assure effective representation, includ ing appointment of new counsel.We ORDER the trial court to transmit a record of the proceedings, which shall include written findings and recommendations, to this Court within THIRTY DAYS of the date of this order.

We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order to the Honorable Andrea Thompson, Presiding Judge, 416th Jud icial District Court; and to counsel for all parties. This appeal is ABATED to allow the trial court to comply with the above order. Th is appeal shall be reinstated when the record transmitted by the trial court is received or at such other time as the Co urt deems proper.

/s/ ERIN A. NOWELL JUSTICE