alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
In The Matter Of: CLELIA AYALA Respondent 

### SERVED: SEPTEMBER 18,2013 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS WASI-ITNGTON, DC
) ) ) ) ) DocketNo. FAA-2012-0910 Case No. 2010S0290061

ORDERDISMISSING PROCEEDING OnJune 3, 2013, the Federal Aviation Administration Regional Counsel ("FAA") filed a one-page Notice ofSettlement, with an attached two-page Promissory Note, statingthat the parties had reached a settlement. As part ofthe Settlement, thepro se Respondent, Ms. Clelia Ayala, had agreed to withdrawher appeal and agreed that the case could be dismissed with prejudice. However, that same day (June 3, 2013) the Respondent raised a separate motion. Pursuant to an agreement ofthe parties, action on the SettlementNotice was reservedpending argument and decision on the Respondent's motion. OnAugust 28,2013 an Order Denying Respondent's Motionto Withhold orRedact Information from the Record was filed. As oftoday's date, neither party has requested interlocutory review ofthe August 28, 2013 Order. After reviewing all relevant caselaw, decisions, regulations, statutory authority, pleadings, and being fully advised; IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1) Pursuantto 14 C.P.R. §13.215, theprose Respondent, Ms. CleliaAyala, has withdrawnherRequest for Hearing because theparties have settledthe dispute, and this proceeding is dismissed with prejudice.

Attachment: Service List

# f

SERVICE LIST- BY U.S. MAIL ORIGINAL & ONE COPY Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430, Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl000 1

Mr. William P. Vines, Esq. Complainant's Counsel ONE COPY

Federal Aviation Administration, Southern Region Office ofthe Regional Counsel, AS0-7 P.O. Box 20636 Atlanta, GA 30320 TEL: 404-305-5200 FAX: 404-305-5223 Ms. CleliaAyala Respondent 11175 Georgia Avenue, Apt. 603 Wheaton, MD 20.902 TEL: 305-588-9397 Judge J.E. Sullivan US. Administrative LawJudge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) Washington, DC 20590 TEL: 202-366-2142 FAX: 202-366-7536 FDMS NO. FAA-2012-0910 (Civil Penalty Action)

1 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.

_j
Page 1 of 1 

Modeling Protocol - Avenal Energy Project 

Gary Rubenstein 

to: 

Gerardo Rios, Carol Bohnenkamp, Julie Walters, Tyler Fox, Roger Brode 

05/05/20 10 03 :41 PM 

Cc: 

"Gary Rubenstein", "Jim Rexroad", "Holmstead, Jeff' 

Show Detai Is 

History: This message has been forwarded. 

As discussed during our call earlier today, enclosed is a copy of the August 2007 dispersion modeling protocol 

for the Avenal Energy Project. In particular, we are interested in knowing whether the following elements of the 

protocol would be acceptable for use in an analysis of the project's impacts as compared with the new l-hour 

average N02 national ambient air quality standard: 

Emission sources included in the analysis 

Meteorological data 

Backgrou nd ozone concentrations 

Background N02 concentrations 

Gary 

fi le://C:\Documents and Settings\cbohnenk\Local Settings\Temp\notesBAAA25\~web491... 6/24/20 10
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.                  

###### National Science Foundation

# AGENCY:

National Science Foundation.

# ACTION:

Notice of permits issued under the Antarctic Conservation of 1978, Public Law 95-541. 

# SUMMARY:

The National Science Foundation (NSF) is required to publish notice of permits issued under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978. This is the required notice.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Nadene G. Kennedy, Permit Office, Office of Polar Programs, Rm. 755, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    On September 14, 2000, the National Science Foundation published a notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     of permit applications received. A permit was issued on October 13, 2000 to the following applicant: Maria Stenzel, Permit No. 2001-022.                

Nadene G. Kennedy,

Permit Officer.

[FR Doc. 00-27161 Filed 10-20-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
#### CARLYLE v. STATE.

No. 25313.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 23, 1951.

No attorney on appeal.

George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

WOODLEY, Commissioner.

The conviction is for forgery, the punishment having been assessed by the jury at two years in the penitentiary.

No statement of facts or bills of exception are found in the record, and the proceedings appear to be regular.

The judgment is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the Court.
EXHIBIT 32.2

                            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 Tektronix, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended February 28, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Colin
L. Slade, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

     (1)   The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

Dated:  April 12, 2004

/s/ COLIN L. SLADE
-----------------------------
Colin L. Slade
Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
<PAGE>

                                                               EXHIBIT 12

Tambrands Inc.                
FORM 10-Q
PART II, Item 6., Exhibit 12
COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
(Unaudited)

The following table sets forth the Company's ratio of earnings to fixed charges
for the periods indicated.

<TABLE> 
<CAPTION> 


                                                        Three months ended March 31,
                                                     -------------------------------------
(in thousands, except ratios)                                1997                1996
                                                     ----------------------- -------------
<S>                                                 <C>                      <C>  
Earnings:
  Income before income taxes                                       $38,191        $37,096
  Fixed charges                                                      2,674          2,491
    Earnings                                                       $40,865        $39,587
                                                      ======================  ============

Fixed charges:
  Interest portion of operating
    lease expense:
      Operating lease expense                                       $1,271         $1,056
      Assumed interest factor                                         0.33           0.33
                                                     ----------------------- -------------
        Interest portion of operating
          lease expense                                                419            348
  Interest expense                                                  $2,255         $2,143
    Fixed charges                                                   $2,674         $2,491
                                                      ======================  ============

Ratio of earnings to fixed charges                                    15.3           15.9
                                                      ======================  ============
</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 11.1


STATEMENT RE: COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
AG-CHEM EQUIPMENT CO., INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
(DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS EXCEPT PER SHARE AMOUNTS)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The per share computations are based on the weighted average number of common
shares outstanding during the periods.

                         Three Months Ended June 30,  Nine Months Ended June 30,
                         ---------------------------  --------------------------
                             1998          1997           1998          1997
                           -------       -------        -------       -------
Shares outstanding at        9,667         9,691          9,670         9,696
beginning of period

Issuance of common
stock                           --            --             --            --

Repurchase and
retirement of common
stock                          (17)          (21)           (20)          (26)
                           -------       -------        -------       -------

Shares outstanding at
end of period                9,650         9,670          9,650         9,670
                           =======       =======        =======       =======

Weighted average
shares outstanding           9,660         9,676          9,665         9,688
                           =======       =======        =======       =======

Net earnings (loss)        $  (474)      $    36        $ 6,361       $ 9,317
                           =======       =======        =======       =======

Earnings (loss) per
common share               $ (0.05)      $  0.00        $  0.66       $  0.96
                           =======       =======        =======       =======

The Company has no common stock equivalents outstanding.


                                       7
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

October 15, 2021

No. 04-21-00236-CR

EX PARTE MICHAEL PAUL

From the 25th Judicial District Court, Guadalupe County, Texas

Trial Court No. 19-1544-CR-A

Honorable William D. Old III, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellant’s brief was due on September 6, 2021. On September 22, 2021, after no brief 

or motion for extension of time to file the brief was filed, we ordered Appellant to file the brief 

or a motion to dismiss by October 4, 2021. We warned Appellant that if he did not comply with 

our order, we would abate this appeal and remand the cause to the trial court for an abandonment 

hearing. To date, Appellant has not filed the brief or a further motion for extension of time to 

file the brief.

We ABATE this appeal and REMAND the cause to the trial court. See TEX. R. APP. P.

38.8(b); Samaniego v. State, 952 S.W.2d 50, 52–53 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, no pet.). 

We ORDER the trial court to conduct a hearing in compliance with Rule 38.8(b) to answer the 

following questions: 

(1) Does Appellant desire to prosecute his appeal?

(2) Though Appellant is not entitled to appointed counsel in a habeas appeal, do the 

interests of justice require it in this case?

See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(b).

The trial court is further ORDERED to file supplemental clerk’s and reporter’s records in 

this court, not later than THIRTY DAYS from the date of this order, which shall include the 

following: (1) a transcription of the hearing and copies of any documentary evidence admitted, 

(2) written findings of fact and conclusions of law, and (3) recommendations addressing the 

above enumerated questions. See id. This court will consider the supplemental records in its 

determination as to whether to proceed without briefs. See id. R. 38.8(b); Samaniego v. State, 

952 S.W.2d at 53.
All other appellate deadlines are SUSPENDED pending further order of this court. 

_________________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 15th day of October, 2021.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court
#### Glen Douglas MARTIN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 27107.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 27, 1954.

*947No attorney on appeal for appellant.

Ewing Werlein, Dist. Atty., King C. Haynie, Asst. Dist. Atty., Houston, Wesley Dice, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted as a second offender of the offense of robbery by assault, and his punishment was assessed at confinement in the state penitentiary for life.

The indictment and all other matters of procedure appear regular. The record is before us without a statement of facts and bills of exception, in the absence of which no question is presented for review.

The judgment of the trial court is therefore affirmed.
### Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA

- 

### 2015

- 3635 Directorate Identifier: 

### 2015

- NM

- 037

- AD

If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If

they do not, click (or Tab) into and then ou t of the changed cell

.

Estimated Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection,

replacement)

Do not include on

condition costs here Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine,

propeller, appliance)

Work

- hours

(include

access, testing,

and close

- up) Labor

cost

(@$8 5 / h

our) Parts Cost Total Costs

(labor +

parts) Number of

U.S.

Registered

Products Total Cost

for U.S. Fleet



### Records Check 2.0 $ 170.00 $ 

### 0 $ 170.00 

### 922 $ 156,740.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00



### The known number of products in compl iance: 

### 0

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $ 156,740



### Costs covered under warranty ( if known ) $ 

### 0

On

- Condition Costs :

Action

(e.g., Inspection,

replacement) Work

- hours

(include access,

testing, and close

up) Labor cost

(@$85/hour) Parts Cost Cost per Product

0.0 $ 0.00 $ 

### 0 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00



### Special considerations for Economic Analysis ( Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table

that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warran ty costs) 

### :

### Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES * NO

* Explanation:

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant?

YES * NO

* Explanation:

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a signif icant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? E xplain for

either a Yes or No answer.

YES NO

Explanation:

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for

a ircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation?

YES * NO



### * Explanation 

### :
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-7992

DANTE LINTON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

UNITED STATES MARSHALS SERVICE; DRUG

ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION,

Defendants - Appellees.

No. 07-6106

DANTE LINTON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

UNITED STATES MARSHALS SERVICE; DRUG

ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge.

(1:05-cv-02859-RDB)

Submitted: July 31, 2007 Decided: August 15, 2007
- 2 -

Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dante Linton, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Charles Kay, OFFICE OF THE

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 3 -

PER CURIAM:

In these consolidated appeals, Dante Linton appeals the

district court’s orders granting summary judgment in favor of

Appellees in this civil action, in which Linton sought the return

of certain property and to set aside an administrative forfeiture.

We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court

in its orders and at the hearing held on January 11, 2007.

Linton v. U.S. Marshals Serv., No. 1:05-cv-02859-RDB (D. Md.

Oct. 24, 2006; filed Jan. 16, 2007 & entered Jan. 18, 2007). We

grant Linton’s motion to file a supplemental informal brief and

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
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y A lton Thomas Davis,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk December 20, 2010

s1213 

# Order

December 20, 2010

141599

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 141599 COA: 280887 Kent CC: 06-000220-FC MARCO ANTONIO HERCULES-LOPEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 22, 2010 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
#### GREEN v. STATE.

*No.*25278.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 25, 1951.

*776N. C. Outlaw, Erwin G. Ernst, Post, for appellant.

George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

MORRISON, Judge.

The offense is murder; the punishment, five years in the penitentiary.

No contention is made that the evidence does not support the verdict.

On motion for new trial appellant established that the jury, in going from the courthouse to the cafe and returning therefrom, on two occasions rode in three separate automobiles, that these automobiles were parked at different places and that the jurors walked from such parking places unattended by an officer in a busy section of town, varying distances to the cafe, and returned therefrom to their cars without the supervision of an officer.

This having been shown, it became incumbent upon the State to show that such jurors did not mingle or converse with anyone not a member of the jury. This burden the State failed to discharge. The officer attending the jury was not called, and only four members of the jury testified on the hearing.

Without a complete showing of noninterference with the jury by anyone outside its number, we cannot say that a separation— as the same is denounced by statute — did not occur. See Arts. 623 and 668, C.C.P.

For the errors pointed out, the judgment of the trial court is reversed and the cause remanded.
## Public Notice 2014 Proposed Rules

The West Virginia Division of Air Quality has sc heduled a public heari ng on July 8, 2013 for its 2014 proposed legislative rules, which will ta ke place at the Division of Environmental Protection’s Charlest on headquarters, 601 57 th Street S.E., Charleston, WV 25304. Oral and written comments will be limited to the proposed revisions and will be made a part of the rulemaking record. Copies of the rules are available from the Secr etary of State’s office or from the DEP at http://www.dep.wv.gov/pio/Pages/Rules.aspx

. You may also obtain hard copies of the information by calling the phone number listed below.

Written comments may be submitted to the Public Information Office at the above address. Comments may also be e-mailed to dep.comments@wv .gov . The hearing dates, locations and comment deadlines are as follows. The public hear ing for all air quality rules will take place beginning at 6 p.m. on July 8, 2013 in the Dolly Sods Conference Room. The comment period will begin on June 7, 2013 and end at the conclusion of the public hearing.

Division of Air Quality 45CSR8 – Ambient Air Quality Standards 45CSR14 – Permits for Construction and Major M odification of Major St ationary Sources for the Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality 45CSR16 – Standards of Performanc e for New Stationary Sources 45CSR18 – Control of Air Pollution from Combustion of Solid Waste 45CSR19 – Permits for Construction and Major Modification of Major Stationary Sources Which Cause or Contribute to Nonattainment Areas 45CSR25 – Control of Air Polluti on from Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage and Disposal Facilities 45CSR34 – Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants

Upon authorization and promulgation of re visions to 45CSR8, 45CSR14 and 45CSR19, the DAQ will submit the rule s to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as revisions to the State Implementation Plan pursuant to the federa l Clean Air Act. Upon authorization and promulgation of revisions to 45CSR18, the DAQ will submit the final rule to the U.S. EPA for approval as a part of West Vi rginia’s Section 111(d )/129 Plan and program delegation of the federal New Source Performance Standards. Rules 45CSR16, 45CSR25 and 45CSR34 will be submitted to EPA to fulfill other federal oblig ations under the Clean Air Act, including delegations, plans and program approvals.

For more information on any of the DAQ rules call 304-926-0475.