alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
*OPINION ISSUED OCTOBER 10, 2007*

#### MICHAEL WALKER and SHARON WALKER VS. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS

(CC-07-073)

Claimants appeared *pro se.*

Jason C. Workman, Attorney at Law, for respondent.

*46PER CURIAM:

Claimants brought this action for vehicle damage which occurred when their 2007 Ford Edge was struck by dust and gravel while claimant Michael Walker was traveling northbound on W. Va. Route 62 in Midway, Putnam County. W. Va. Route 62 is a road maintained by respondent. The Court is of the opinion to deny the claim for the reasons more fully stated below.

The incident giving rise to this claim occurred between 10:00 p.m. and 10:30 p.m. on March 2, 2007. W. Va. Route 62 is a two-lane highway at the area of the incident involved in this claim. Michael Walker testified that he had noticed piles ofmud and debris on the road from where a logging company had tracked it onto the road. Claimant testified that he saw the log trucks bringing the debris onto the road. He stated that when he drove in the same area later that same day, wind blew dust and gravel onto his vehicle, damaging the hood, fender, grill, and headlights totaling $1,255.53.

The position of the respondent is that it didnot have actual or constructive notice of the condition on W. Va. Route 62 at the site of claimants’ accident for the date in question. Gordon Bowles, Crew Chief Supervisor I for respondent in Putnam County, testified that crews for respondent had taken a snow plow and scraped the mud and debris off óf W. Va. Route 62 on February 21, 2007 after receiving a complaint about the condition of the road. He stated that a logging company was bringing the debris onto the roads and that crews for respondent removed the debris whenever they received complaints about it.

The well-established principle of law in West Virginia is that the State is neither an insurer nor a guarantor of the safety of travelers upon its roads. *Adkins vs. Sims,*130 W.Va. 645; 46 S.E.2d 81 (1947). In order to hold respondent liable for road defects of this type, a claimant must prove that respondent had actual or constructive notice of the defect and a reasonable time to take corrective action. *Chapman*vs. *Dept. of Highways,*16 Ct. Cl. 103 (1986).

In the instant case, the Court is of the opinion that respondent did not have actual or constructive notice of the debris in the road which claimants’ vehicle struck prior to the incident in question. Further, testimony at hearing identified a logging company as the cause of the debris being brought onto the road. Respondent cleared the debris after being made aware of it. Consequently, there is insufficient evidence of negligence upon which to justify an award. Thus, the claimants may not make a recovery for their loss in this claim.

In view of the foregoing, the Court is of the opinion to and does deny this claim.

Claim disallowed.
### C OURT OF 

### A PPEALS FOR THE



### F IRST 

### D ISTRICT OF 

### T EXAS AT 

### H OUSTON



### O RDER ON 

### M OTION

Cause number: 01

- 1 5

- 0 0 3 63

- C R

Style: Ruben M unoz

v

. The State of Texas

Date motion s filed * : December 7 and 18, 2015; January 6, 2016

Type of motion s : Requests for Extension of Time to File Brief and

“Second Request for Extension of Time to File Brief”

Party filing motion s : Appellant

Document to be filed: Appellant’s B rief

Is appeal accelerated? No

If motion to extend time:

Original due date: December 7, 201 5

Number of previous extensions granted: Current Due date:

Date Requested: January 20, 2016

Ordered that motion s are :

 Granted

— “Second Request for Extension of Time to File Brief,”

If document is to be filed, document due: January 20, 2016

 T he Court will not grant additional motions to extend time absent extraordinary circumstances

.

 Denied

 Dismissed

— “Request for Extension of Time to File Brief,” filed December 7, 2015, and “Request for

Extension of Time to File Brief,” filed December 18, 2015

 Other: _____________________________________

Appellant’s “Second Request for Extension of Time to File Brief, ” filed on January 6, 2016, is granted. The time

to file appellant’s brief is extended to January 20, 2016.

Appellant’s “Request for Extension of Time to File Brief,” filed on December 7, 2015, and “Request for

Extension of Time to File Brief ,” filed on December 18, 2015, are dismissed as moot.

Judge ’ s signature: /s / Russell Lloyd

 Acting individually

Date: February 9, 2016
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

September 26, 2007

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 07-10697

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 06-00068-CR-KD

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

versus 

LANCE WILKERSON, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Alabama

_________________________

(September 26, 2007)

Before TJOFLAT, ANDERSON and BIRCH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:
2

Raymond A. Pierson, appointed appellate counsel for Lance Wilkerson in

this direct criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of

the appellant and filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738,

87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire

record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is

correct. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable

issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Wilkerson’s

convictions and sentences are AFFIRMED.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 250 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. J. RES. 250

 Requiring the President to obtain authorization under the War Powers 
    Resolution prior to introducing United States Armed Forces into 
                 hostilities in the former Yugoslavia.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             August 5, 1993

Mr. Roth introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred 
                  to the Committee on Foreign Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
 Requiring the President to obtain authorization under the War Powers 
    Resolution prior to introducing United States Armed Forces into 
                 hostilities in the former Yugoslavia.

Whereas the President has stated his intention to commit United States Armed 
        Forces in the former Yugoslavia under the auspices of the North Atlantic 
        Treaty Organization: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION. 1. REQUIREMENT OF AUTHORIZATION FOR INTRODUCTION OF ARMED 
              FORCES INTO HOSTILITIES IN THE FORMER YUGOSLAVIA.

    (a) In General.--The President shall obtain specific statutory 
authorization from the Congress under the War Powers Resolution prior 
to introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into 
situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly 
indicated by the circumstances, in the former Yugoslavia.
    (b) Former Yugoslavia Defined.--For purposes of this joint 
resolution, the term ``former Yugoslavia'' means the territory, 
airspace, or waters of any state that was a part of the former 
Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

                                 <all>
```
March 24 , 2015

Mr. David Michael Causa II

200 F Skip Zerbe Street

Mohnton, PA 19540

Dear Mr. Causa :

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption. It

explains why we cannot process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can n o t Process Your Request

We entered your Feb ruary 5 , 2015 exemption request into the public docket (No. FAA

- 20 15

- 0321 ) , 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 fr om which you seek relief and th e extent of

the relief you seek

.

• The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you

seek an exempti on.

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

W hat 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 No t Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you

furth er. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267

- 9521

.

Sincerely,

/s/

Jake Troutman

Program Analyst , Airmen and

Airspace Rules Division

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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 01-41031

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

SANTOS BENITES-PINEDA,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-01-CR-340-1

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

August 20, 2002

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Santos

Benites-Fineda has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a

brief as required by Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). 

Benites-Fineda has not filed a response. Our independent review

of the brief and the record discloses no nonfrivolous issue. 

Accordingly, counsel's motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED,
No. 01-41031

-2-

counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the

APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 28 (Thursday, February 10, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 6630]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-3114]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE


Notice of Consent Judgments Pursuant to The Comprehensive 
Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act

    In accordance with Departmental Policy, 28 CFR 50.7, 38 FR 19029, 
and 42 U.S.C. 9622(d), notice is hereby given that a proposed Consent 
Decree in United States v. Cornell University, Civ. No. 00-CV-0121 
(NAM), DOJ # 90-11-2-2/3, was lodged in the United States District 
Court for the Northern District of New York on January 21, 2000. The 
Consent Decree resolves the liability of defendant under section 107(a) 
of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability 
Act (``CERCLA''), 42 U.S.C. 9607(a), relating to the Pollution 
Abatement Services Superfund Site in Oswego, New York (the ``Site'').
    Under the proposed consent decree, Cornell will cash out its 
liability for the Site, subjects to reopeners, by paying to the United 
States the sum of $30,000 in partial reimbursement of EPA's past 
response costs and paying $335,500 toward future operable unit 3 
(``OU3'') Site costs to the responsible parties who are performing OU3 
under an earlier consent decree. In exchange for the work and payment 
of response costs, Defendants will receive a covenant not to sue for 
response actions at the Site subject to certain reservations of rights.
    The Department of Justice will receive, for a period of thirty (30) 
days from the date of this publication, written comments relating to 
the proposed Consent Decree. Comments should be addressed to the 
Assistant Attorney General for the Environment and Natural Resources 
Division, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. 20530, and should 
refer to United States v. Cornell University, Civ. No. 00-CV-0121 
(NAM), DOJ # 90-11-2-2/3.
    The proposed Consent Decree may be examined at the Office of the 
United States Attorney, Northern District of New York, James Foley U.S. 
Courthouse, 445 Broadway, Room 231, Albany, New York 12207; and at the 
Region II Office of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 290 
Broadway, New York, New York 10278. Copies of the Consent Decree may be 
obtained by mail from the consent Decree Library, United States 
Department of Justice, PO Box 7611 Ben Franklin Station, Washington, DC 
20044, (202) 514-1547. In requesting a copy, please enclose a check in 
the amount of $5.25 (25 cents per page reproduction costs) payable to 
the Consent Decree Library.

Joel M. Gross,
Environmental Enforcement Section, Environment and Natural Resources 
Division.
[FR Doc. 00-3114 Filed 2-9-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-15-M
Form of Stock Grant Notice Letter from CarMax, Inc



 Exhibit 10.20 
  
 <Date> 
  
 <Name> 
 <Address> 
 <City, State, Zip> 
  
 Dear <First Name>: 
  
 This letter serves
as notification that CarMax, Inc. hereby grants you <Number> shares of CarMax, Inc. Common Stock in consideration of your service to the Company as a Director from
                    , 200     until the 200     Annual Meeting of Shareholders.
This annual retainer grant is based on an average market price of <$> and has a <$> market value, as approved by the Board. 
  
 At your earliest convenience, you will need to notify
                     at (804)
            -             ext.
                     as to whether you would like the shares issued in a certificate or wired to a brokerage account.

  
 If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (804)
            -             ext.             .

  
 Sincerely, 
  
 Keith D. Browning 
 Executive Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 31.1


   CERTIFICATION OF CEO PURSUANT TO RULES 13A-14 AND 15D-14 OF THE SECURITIES
  EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, AS AMENDED, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF
                       THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Paul S. Moller, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Moller International;

2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report 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 with respect to the period covered by this annual
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:

     a)   designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that
          material information relating to the registrant, including its
          consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
          entities, particularly during the period in which this annual report
          is being prepared;

     b)   evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls
          and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of
          this annual report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

     c)   presented in this annual report our conclusions about the
          effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our
          evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

     a)   all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
          controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to
          record, process, summarize and report financial data and have
          identified for the registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in
          internal controls; and

     b)   any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
          employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal
          controls; and

6. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this
annual report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls
or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent
to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with
regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.


Date: November 2, 2006



/s/ Paul S. Moller
------------------
CEO and President
# AGENCY:

Minerals Management Service (MMS), Interior. 

# ACTION:

Corrections to Final Regulations. 

# SUMMARY:

This document contains corrections to the final rule titled “Postlease Operations Safety” that was published Tuesday, December 28, 1999 (64 FR 72756). We are correcting a section title and adding a word in the section that was inadvertently omitted. 

# EFFECTIVE DATE:

January 27, 2000. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kumkum Ray, (703) 787-1600. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

## Background 

The final regulations that are the subject of these corrections supersede 30 CFR 250, subpart A, General, regulations on the effective date and affect all operators and lessees on the Outer Continental Shelf. 

With respect to the corrections, the title of § 250.142 is inaccurate and the word “District” was omitted inadvertently in the section. 

## Need for Correction 

As published, the final regulations contain errors which may prove to be misleading and are in need of clarification. 

## Correction of Publication 

Accordingly, the publication on December 28, 1999, of the final regulations, which were the subject of FR Doc. 99-31869, is corrected as follows: 

§ 250.142 

On page 72783, in the first column, the title of and the language in § 250.142 are corrected to read : 

§ 250.142 

We may approve departures to the operating requirements. You may apply for a departure by writing to the District or Regional Supervisor. 

Dated: January 31, 2000. 

E.P. Danenberger, 

Chief, Engineering and Operations Division. 

[FR Doc. 00-3109 Filed 2-9-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310-MR-U
#### HILL et al. v. McDANIEL, County Superintendent, et al.

No. 1911.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Eastland.

May 19, 1939.

Rehearing Denied June 16, 1939.

J. S. Kendall, of'Munday, for appellants.

Jarrell H. Davis, of Seymour, for appel-lees.

LESLIE, Chief Justice.

Plaintiffs H. W. Hill and others instituted this suit against Otho McDaniel, County Superintendent of Baylor County and the County Trustees of that County, O. H. Harrison, Alvie Martin, Marion McLarty, Mixon Studer and W. W. Smith. The plaintiffs alleged that they are the duly elected, qualified and acting Board of Trustees of Maybelle-Lively School District No. 8, of Baylor County, Texas. The proceeding is essentially one for mandamus against the Superintendent and County Trustees seeking to force the Superintendent to approve a contract plaintiffs had attempted to make for the transportation of children to school, etc.

• The defendants answered by general demurrer and general denial and pleaded the existence of another and different contract entered into prior to that set up by the plaintiffs.

The cause was tried before the court without a jury and judgment adverse to the plaintiffs was rendered by the court. There are no findings of fact nor conclusions of law in the transcript. There is no brief by the appellants. Their attorney, however, appeared before this court and persuasively argued that the record reflected fundamental error which would require a reversal of the judgment below. In response to such argument we have examined the record to determine whether or not such error exists. After a careful consideration thereof we have come to the conclusion that the record reflects no such fundamental error, and it is therefore, the duty of this court to affirm the judgment of the trial court.

It is’ accordingly so done upon the authority of Haynes v. J. M. Radford Groc. Co., 118 Tex. 277, 14 S.W.2d 811; Id., Tex.Civ.App.. 16 S.W.2d 1118.
#### COTHRAN v. STATE.

No. 21329.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Dec. 11, 1940.

J. Mitch Johnson, of San Saba, for appellant.

Lloyd'W. Davidson,. State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

Appellant was convicted in the county court of San Saba County for violation of the local option law, and assessed a penalty of two years in the county jail, from which he appeals.

The question raised in this appeal is whether or not a conviction against appellant in Cause No. 1744, dated November 30, 1938, can again be utilized in this case after having been used for the purpose of enhancing the penalty in prior cases.

Without stating the facts, which are practically the same and which raise the same questions of law, it is sufficient to say that this is the same question as was presented in several former appeals, Cothren v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 140 S.W.2d 860; Cothren v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 141 S.W.2d 600, and in Cothren v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 143 S.W.2d 958, against this same appellant, the opinion in which has not yet been reported.

Reference is here made to said opinions, and for the reasons therein stated the judgment herein is reversed and remanded.