alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Seabolt v General Motors Corporation,

No. 90709;

Court of Appeals No. 130134.
AAM

- 13

- 386

- E June 12, 2013

Exemption No. 10353 A

Reg ulatory Docket No. FAA

- 2011

- 0761

Mr. Joshua Clark

Freedom Aviation

310 Hangar Road

Lynchburg, VA 24502

Dear M r

. Clark :

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your petition to extend Exemption No.

10353. It explains the basis for our decision, describes its effect, and lists the conditions and

limitations.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter dated May 21, 2013 , you petition ed the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on

behalf of Freedom Aviation f or an exemption from part 120 . That exemption, if granted,

would allow Freedom Aviation, which is operat ing under separate parts of Title 14, Code of

Federal Regulations (14 CFR), to cover its safety

- se nsitive employees under one testing

program.

In your petition, you indicate that there has been no change in the conditions and reasons

relative to public interest and safety that were the basis for granting the original exemption.

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 pe tit ion would be detrimental to Freedom Aviation

.

Our Decision

The FAA has determined that the justification for the issuance of Exemption No. 10353

remains valid with respect to this exemption and is in the public interest. Therefore, under the

authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which t he FAA Administrator has

delegated to me, I grant your petition, subject to the following conditions and limitations.2

Conditions and Limitations

1. Employees of Freedom Aviation are subject to the drug and alcohol regulations at all

times while conducting o perations under part 135 or part 91.

2. The drug and alcohol testing program must be implement ed under the auspices of the

Freedom Aviation part 135 operation, not under part 91.

Thi s exemption terminates on September 30

, 201 5

, unless sooner superseded or r escinded.

Sincerely,

/s/

James R. Fraser

, M.D.

Deputy Federal Air Surgeon
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

 

I, Donald P. Newman, certify that:

 

1.              I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K (Amendment No. 1) of the registrant;

 

2.              Based on my knowledge, this 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 report.

 

Date: January 30, 2017

 
| /s/ Donald P. Newman    |   |
|-------------------------|--------|
| Donald P. Newman        |   |
| Chief Financial Officer |   |

 

----
AO 450 (Rev. 11/11) Judgment in a Civil Action

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

__________ District of __________

)

)

)

)

)

Plaintiff

v. Civil Action No.

Defendant

JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL ACTION

The court has ordered that (check one):

’ the plaintiff (name) recover from the

defendant (name) the amount of

dollars ($ ), which includes prejudgment

interest at the rate of %, plus post judgment interest at the rate of % per annum, along with costs.

’ the plaintiff recover nothing, the action be dismissed on the merits, and the defendant (name)

recover costs from the plaintiff (name)

.

’ other:

.

This action was (check one):

’ tried by a jury with Judge presiding, and the jury has

rendered a verdict.

’ tried by Judge without a jury and the above decision

was reached.

’ decided by Judge on a motion for

.

Date: CLERK OF COURT

Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk

11/14/2019
United States Court of Appeals

For the First Circuit

No. 06-2449

COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO,

Plaintiff, Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General;

ROBERT MUELLER, Director of the FBI; ROSA EMILIA RODRIGUEZ-VÉLEZ,

U.S. Attorney for the District of Puerto Rico; and LUIS S.

FRATICELLI, Special Agent in Charge of the FBI in Puerto Rico,

Defendants, Appellees.

ERRATA

The opinion of this court issued on June 15, 2007, should be

amended as follows:

On page 49, line 4, replace "note 16," with "note 15,".
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3988 

To amend section 313 of the Tariff Act of 1930 to specify articles that 

qualify as commercially interchangeable merchandise for purposes of certain duty drawback. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 3, 2009 

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

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend section 313 of the Tariff Act of 1930 to specify 

articles that qualify as commercially interchangeable 

merchandise for purposes of certain duty drawback. 

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

3 SECTION 1. COMMERCIALLY INTERCHANGEABLE MER4 CHANDISE FOR DUTY DRAWBACK PURPOSES. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 313(j) of the Tariff Act 

6 of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1313(j)) is amended by adding at the 

7 end the following new paragraph: 

8 ‘‘(5) For purposes of this subsection, merchan9 dise is ‘commercially interchangeable’ with imported 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3988 IH

1 merchandise if it is classifiable under the same 8- 

2 digit subheading of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule 

3 of the United States.’’. 

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

5 subsection (a) shall apply with respect to claims filed for 

6 drawback under section 313(j) of the Tariff Act of 1930 

7 on or after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
SERVED OCTOBER 18, 20.0 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS v:;-, npT \<^ P 1-30 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTER OF 

FEDERAL EXPRESS, INC. 

FAA DOCKET NO. CP10GL0004 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

DMS No. FAA 2010-0539 

HEARING NOTICE 

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that testimony and evidence will be heard and considered 

on January 18 and 19,2011, in Courtroom TBA, U.S. District Court, Northern 

District of Illinois, Everett McKinley Diricsen Building, 219 South Dearborn Street, 

Chicago, Illinois 60604.' Hearings will,;:o«H»eijce at 9:00 a.m. and conclude at 4:30 

p.m. each day. The parties should vatJate the courat^je^^ r before 5:00 p.m. each day. 

uchardjC. Goodwin 

J.S. Administrative Law Judge 

Attachment - Service List 

' The parties should confirm the courtroom with Larry Collins, Administrative Assistant to the Chief Judge, 

Room 2530A [312-435-5603; FAX 312-408-5088], prior to or on the day of hearing. 
B ^ B 

FAA Docket No. CPI0GL0004 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

SERVICE LIST 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building—Suite 2W1000^ 

ONE COPY 

Courtney E. Felts, Respondent's Counsel 

Staff Attorney, Federal Express, Inc. 

3620 Hacks Cross Road 

Building B, 3"^ Floor 

Memphis, TN 38125-8800 

TEL: 901-434-8632 

FAX: 901-434-8283 

Kate Barber, Complainant's Counsel 

Office of Regional Coimsel 

Great ^akes Region, AGL-7 

Federal Aviation Administration 

2300 East Devon Avenue 

DesPIaines.IL 60018 

TEL: 847-294-7862 

FAX: 847-294-7498 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

East Building Ground Floor, Room E12-320 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-2139 Attorney-Advisor 

202-366-5121 Legal Assistant 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

' Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following addjr^fj jPederal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building—Suite ZWitw.Washington, 

DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION (IN THOUSANDS EXCEPT PER
UNIT DATA) EXTRACTED FROM STAR GAS PARTNERS, L.P. AND SUBSIDIARY CONSOLIDATED
BALANCE SHEETS AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 1997 AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF
OPERATIONS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0001002590
<NAME> STAR GAS PARTNERS, L.P.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                             889
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,993
<ALLOWANCES>                                       273
<INVENTORY>                                      6,597
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                14,165
<PP&E>                                         114,665
<DEPRECIATION>                                  19,383
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 147,469
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           10,846
<BONDS>                                         85,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        51,607
<OTHER-SE>                                        (29)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   147,469
<SALES>                                        130,685
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               135,159
<CGS>                                           72,211
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   42,933
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                10,511
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   312
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               7,155
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,037
<INCOME-TAX>                                        25
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,012
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,012
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.37
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.37
<FN>
1. COMMON - IN DECEMBER 1995 STAR GAS PARTNERS, L.P. ISSUED COMMON AND
   SUBORDINATED UNITS WHICH REPRESENT LIMITED PARTNER INTERESTS.  THESE UNITS 
   ARE CONSIDERED TO POSSESS THE CHARACTERISTICS OF COMMON STOCK AND ARE BOTH 
   INCLUDED IN THE DETERMINATION OF EPS.

2. OTHER-SE - REPRESENTS THE GENERAL PARTNER'S INTEREST IN THE PARTNERSHIP AND 
   IS CLASSIFIED HERE SINCE IT DOES NOT POSSESS THE RELEVANT CHARACTERISTICS OF
   EITHER COMMON OR PREFERRED STOCK.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, June 20, 2018. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, June 20, 2018 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A18I0206. THE CITY OF SAVANNAH v. ANNE REDLUS et al..
Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of this order. The Clerk of State Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record transmitted to the Court of Appeals.
LC NUMBERS: STCV1700661
#### ARKANSAS STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION *v.*Lester WRIGHT et ux

79-74

585 S.W. 2d 955

Opinion delivered September 17, 1979

(In Banc)

*498
      *Thomas B. Keys*and *Philip N. Gowen,*for appellant.

*Ernie E. Wright,*for appellees.

Frank Holt, Justice.

In this eminent domain proceeding, the appellant acquired fee title to .36 acres of a three acre tract of commercial real estate land from the appellees. The jury awarded $20,000 as just compensation.

Appellant first contends that the court erred in permitting appellees’ expert witness, Evans, to testify to severance damages after testifying to the market value of the part taken. Appellant argues that the proper measure of damages in eminent domain cases in which a partial taking is involved is the difference in the market value of the whole property before the taking and the value after the taking less any enhancement to the remainder, citing *Young*v. *Arkansas State Highway Commission,*242 Ark. 812, 415 S.W. 2d 575 (1967). We need not reach the merits of this argument since it is well established that when part of a witness’ testimony is admissible, it is proper for the court to refuse, as here, a motion to strike the witness’ entire testimony. *Urban Renewal Agency of Harrison*v. *Hefley,*237 Ark. 39, 371 S.W. 2d 141 (1963); *Young*v. *Arkansas State Highway Commission, supra;*and *Arkansas State Highway Commission*v. *Maus,*245 Ark. 357, 432 S.W. 2d 748 (1968). Here appellees’ value witness, Evans, admittedly an expert witness, testified on direct examination that the value of the land taken was $23,500. Over appellant’s objection, however, he was also permitted to testify that the remaining property suffered $6,000 in severance damages because of the taking. Evans’ testimony, as an expert witness as to the total value of the land taken, was unquestionably proper. Therefore the court properly refused to strike his testimony in its entirety.

Appellant next asserts that the court erred in permitting the testimony of appellees’ witness, Magness, to go to the jury and in overruling appellant’s motion for a mistrial. Again the appellant moved to strike this witness’ testimony in its entirety. This witness, as did Evans, testified as to the sale price of *499other properties in the vicinity of the condemned property. This testimony is admissible if it is shown, as here, that the pieces of property are similar or comparable to the condemned tract. Here Magness testified to the sale price of similar property he had purchased in the vicinity for his own use. This tract and the property being taken had “good easement drive off” and substantial highway frontage. His testimony of comparable sales in the vicinity was admissible. The court properly refused to strike his testimony in its entirety. Furthermore, any possible prejudice was removed when the court, by consent of the appellees, instructed the jury to disregard all of Magness’ testimony with reference to the value he placed on the lands taken or any just compensation to the appellees.

Affirmed.
#### Luke Edward DAVIS *v.*STATE of Arkansas

CR 79-105

585 S.W. 2d 956

Opinion delivered September 17, 1979

(Division I)

*John W. Achor,*Public Defender, by: *Howard W. Koopman,*Deputy Public Defender, for appellant.

*Steve Clark,*Atty. Gen., by: *Alice Ann Burns,*Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Darrell Hickman, Justice.

Luke Edward Davis was convicted by a jury in the Pulaski County Circuit Court of aggravated robbery and sentenced as an habitual criminal to 30 years’ imprisonment.

On appeal he alleges one error: The trial court improperly admitted as evidence certain pre-trial statements made by Davis.

David Stockston was delivering cigarettes to vending machines at the East End Cafe in North Little Rock, Arkansas on September 26, 1978. He testified that as he was leaving, two men, one of whom had a gun, robbed him of his money bag. He identified Davis as one of the men.

Two North Little Rock policemen arrested Davis without a warrant at the East End Cafe about 1:30 p.m. on the 9th of October. They took Davis to the police station and, as they were taking him inside, saw Stockton, the victim, *506seated at the desk. Davis immediately said, “This is the man that thinks I robbed him,” walked over to Stockton and added, “Tell them I didn’t rob you.” The exact words varied according to the testimony of the officers and Stockton, but essentially the testimony was the same. Davis argues that these statements should have been excluded as evidence because they occurred during a “critical stage” of the legal proceedings when Davis was without legal counsel.

Davis cites as controlling the case of *U.S.*v. *Wade,*388 U.S. 218 (1967). We disagree that the *Wade*case, or any other decisions, required the exclusion of the statements. First, there is no evidence that there was a line-up as there was in *Wade;*in fact, the appellant concedes that there is no evidence that the police intended for there to be a confrontation between the victim and the accused as it occurred. Stockton said he was asked to come to the station to sign a warrant. Next, Davis had been warned of his rights as required by *Miranda*v. *Arizona,*384 U.S. 436 (1966).

The statements were simply spontaneous, and in the absence of any evidence of impropriety of the part of the police, they were properly admitted.

Affirmed.

We agree. Harris, C.J., and George Rose Smith and Fogleman, JJ.
### IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 22 - 0212

_________________ ST ATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. LOUIS TED CAYE,

Defendant and Appellant. O R D E R

_________________ Appellant Louis Ted Caye was granted an extension of time to file and serve the opening brief on or before August 14 , 2023 . The opening brief is now overdue. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Appellant shall prepare, file , and serve the opening brief on appeal no later than September 14 , 2023 . Failure to file the brief within that time will result in dismissal of this appeal with prejudice and without further notice. The Clerk is directed to provide copies of this Order to all counsel of record .

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

August 28 2023

08/28/2023
Case Number: DA 22-0212
1 The Honorable Daniel L. Hovland, United States District Judge for the District of North Dakota. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ Nos. 08-2428/2615

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeals from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of North Dakota. Larry J. Young, * * [PUBLISHED] Appellant, * * Huey Long Company, Inc., * * Garnishee. *

___________ Submitted: July 7, 2009 Filed: January 29, 2010

___________ Before RILEY, SMITH, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. In these consolidated app eals, Larry J. Young challenges the district court’s 1 denial of his motion for contempt and its order of garnishment.-2- In September 1990, Young wa s ordered to pay restitution to the United States as a condition of supervised release, afte r he was found guilty of filing false tax claims. Young was discharged from superv ised release in November 1993 and the criminal case terminated. In January 2008, the government applied for a writ of continuing garnishment, naming Young’s employer as garnishee. Young moved to quash the proceeding and later to dismiss, asserting the government was “mixing civil and criminal jurisdictions.” The distri ct court denied the motions, ruling the government could initiate collection proceedings to collect a fine or restitution as part of a criminal sentence.
Young then moved to hold the governmen t in contempt, claiming it had filed a false lien notice in the county recorder’s office, and had violated a court order by initiating the garnishment proceeding despitehis discharge from supervised release. The court denied the motion because Y oung’s obligation to pay restitution did not terminate when his supervised release ended. See United States v. Rostoff , 164 F.3d 63, 66 (1st Cir. 1999) (failure to pay at the time due renders pa yment overdue; it does not abate the obligation; restitution order extinguished by satisfaction, not by passage of time). Young appeals the district court’s denial of his contempt motion and seeks to proceed in forma pauperis in appeal No. 08-2428. We dismiss this appeal as premature because Young filed his notice of appeal before final judgment was entered, and the merits of the appeal are be fore this court in appeal No. 08-2615.

This court concludes the district cour t did not err in or dering garnishment or denying in forma pauperis status. See In re: Southwestern Glass Co., Inc. , 332 F.3d 513, 516 (8th Cir. 2003) (conclusions of law are reviewed de novo). The judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________
|Exhibit
10.25


Amendment to
1999 Long Term Incentive Plan


Sections
6(c)(i)(A) and (B) of the IMPATH Inc. 1999 Long Term Incentive Plan are hereby
amended to read as follows:
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | (A)
Except as may be provided by the specific terms of an Award or an amendment of an Award,
no Award (other than Released Securities), and no right under any such Award, may be
assigned, alienated, pledged, attached, sold or otherwise transferred or encumbered by a
Participant otherwise than by will or by the laws of descent and distribution (or, in the
case of Restricted Securities, to the Company) and any such purported assignment,
alienation, pledge, attachment, sale or other transfer or encumbrance shall be void and
unenforceable against the Company or any Affiliate.
| | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | (B)
Except as may be provided by the specific terms of an Award or an amendment of an Award,
each Award, and each right under any Award, shall be exercisable during the Participants
lifetime only by the Participant or, if permissible under applicable law, by the
Participants guardian or legal representative.
| | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<PAGE>

                                  Exhibit 99.1

                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 Form 10-Q of Microtune, Inc. (the "Company") for the
quarter ended September 30, 2002, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Douglas J. Bartek, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. (S)1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the information contained
in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of the Company.


                                        /s/ Douglas J. Bartek
                                        ---------------------
                                        Douglas J. Bartek
                                        Chief Executive Officer
                                        Date: November 12, 2002