alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
REGULATORY EVALUATION

Directorate Identifier: 2009-NM-225-AD

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a "significant regulatory action"?

YES () explain NO (X)

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities?

YES () explain NO (X)

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

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

requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska, where aviation might be the only mode of

transportation?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-20-00079-CV

IN RE Chad KLEIN

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Irene Rios, Justice

Delivered and Filed: February 12, 2020

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED

On February 6, 2020, relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus, and requested a stay of 

the trial court’s temporary orders that relator contends were orally rendered on February 5, 2020. 

After considering the petition, this court concludes relator is not entitled to the relief sought. 

Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is denied. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a). Relator’s 

request for a stay is denied as moot.

PER CURIAM

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2017-CI-01708, styled In the Interest of B.F.K., K.K., and B.M.K., Children, 

pending in the 57th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Antonia Arteaga, presiding.
```

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 105 (Tuesday, June 2, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 31449]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-13387]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Twenty Fourth Meeting: RTCA Special Committee 217--Aeronautical 
Databases Joint With EUROCAE WG-44--Aeronautical Databases

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), U.S. Department of 
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of RTCA Special Committee 217--Aeronautical Databases 
Joint with EUROCAE WG-44--Aeronautical Databases.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a 
meeting of RTCA Special Committee 217--Aeronautical Databases being 
held jointly with EUROCAE WG-44--Aeronautical Databases.

DATES: The meeting will be held June 15 to 19\,\ 2015 from 9:00 a.m. to 
5:00 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be hosted by RTCA, 1150 18th St. NW., Suite 
910, Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sophie Bousquet, SBousquet@rtca.org, 
202-330-0663 or The RTCA Secretariat, 1150 18th Street NW., Suite 910, 
Washington, DC, 20036, or by telephone at (202) 833-9339, fax at (202) 
833-9434, or Web site at http://www.rtca.org.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a) (2) of the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.), notice is 
hereby given for a meeting of RTCA Special Committee 217--Aeronautical 
Databases held jointly with EUROCAE WG-44--Aeronautical Databases. The 
agenda will include the following:

June 15th-June 19th (0900-1700 EDT)

Opening Plenary Session

 Co-Chairmen's remarks and introductions
 Approve minutes from 23rd meeting
 Review and approve meeting agenda for 24th meeting
 ED-76A--DO-200B progress status
 Discussion on the outcome of DO-201A/ED-77 Scoping Exercise
 Schedule and working arrangements for this week

FRAC and Open Consultation Resolution

 DO-272/ED-99, DO-276/ED-98, DO-291/ED-119--FRAC and Open 
Consultation Resolution
    [cir] Overview of comments received--by FRAC Preparation Team
    [cir] Resolution of individual comments by priority
    [cir] Summary of FRAC resolution
 Action Plan to get the final document draft copies to RTCA and 
EUROCA

June 19th (0130-1700 EDT)

 Approval of Documents for the PMC/TAC Meeting in September 
2015
 Next meetings, ToRs, dates, locations
 Any other business and Adjourn

    Pre-registration for the meeting itself is required, if you have 
not already done so, please provide your information to Sophie 
Bousquet, sbousquet@rtca.org. Persons wishing to present statements or 
obtain information should contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT section. Members of the public may present a 
written statement to the committee at any time.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on May 28, 2015.
Mohannad Dawoud,
Management Analyst, Program Oversight and Administration, ANG-A15, 
Federal Aviation Administration.
[FR Doc. 2015-13387 Filed 6-1-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
```
Erik Kurt BOE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D17-1082

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[June 21, 2018]

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Tatjana Ostapoff, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Mitchell A. Egber, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

Per Curiam.

*Affirmed.*

Damoorgian, Klingensmith and Kuntz, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit 31(b)**

 

I, Michael R. Sayre, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Pinnacle Data Systems, Inc.; 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary 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 quarterly report; 

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly 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 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 periodin which this quarterly report is being prepared; 

 

b) evaluated theeffectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this quarterly report (the “Evaluation Date”); and 

 

c) presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure 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 theequivalent functions): 

 

a) all significant deficiencies in the design oroperation 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 otheremployees 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 quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controlssubsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses. 

 

Date: May 13, 2004
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6052 

To amend the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act to improve 

provisions relating to dyslexia, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 25, 2023 

Mrs. HOUCHIN (for herself, Ms. BROWNLEY, Mr. WESTERMAN, Mr. BUCSHON, 

Mr. BURLISON, and Mr. MRVAN) introduced the following bill; which was 

referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce 

A BILL 

To amend the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act 

to improve provisions relating to dyslexia, 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 ‘‘21st Century Dyslexia 

5 Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. DYSLEXIA. 

7 (a) DEFINITIONS.—Section 602 of the Individuals 

8 with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1401) is 

9 amended— 

2 

•HR 6052 IH

1 (1) in paragraph (3)(A), by striking ‘‘or specific 

2 learning disabilities’’ and inserting ‘‘specific learning 

3 disabilities, or dyslexia’’; 

4 (2) by inserting after paragraph (3) the fol5 lowing: 

6 ‘‘(4) DYSLEXIA.—The term ‘dyslexia’ means an 

7 unexpected difficulty in reading for an individual 

8 who has the intelligence to be a much better reader, 

9 most commonly caused by a difficulty in the phono10 logical processing (the appreciation of the individual 

11 sounds of spoken language), which affects the ability 

12 of an individual to speak, read, and spell.’’; and 

13 (3) in paragraph (30)— 

14 (A) in subparagraph (B), by striking ‘‘dys15 lexia,’’; and 

16 (B) in subparagraph (C), by striking ‘‘or 

17 of environmental’’ and all that follows and in18 serting ‘‘or dyslexia’’. 

19 (b) PROVISION OF ACCOMMODATIONS AND SERV20 ICES.—The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act is 

21 amended by inserting after section 608 (20 U.S.C. 1407) 

22 the following: 

3 

•HR 6052 IH

1 ‘‘SEC. 608A. PROVISION OF ACCOMMODATIONS AND SERV2 ICES. 

3 ‘‘In determining eligibility for, or providing, an ac4 commodation or service under this title, a local educational 

5 agency or other agency shall provide equal access, to the 

6 accommodation or service, to all eligible children, includ7 ing eligible children who are— 

8 ‘‘(1) children from low-income families; 

9 ‘‘(2) children from families with low socio10 economic status; and 

11 ‘‘(3) children who are limited English pro12 ficient.’’. 

Æ
#### Edward Elsworth, Respondent, *v.*George Caldwell et al., Appellants.

A petitioning creditor under the two-thirds act, who adds to his signature the declaration of release required by said act (2 R. S., 36, § 11), thereby only transfers to the assignee any and every lien or security upon the estate and property of the debtor, not a lien or security upon the property of a third person. When, therefore, such creditor has a joint judgment against two, the signing of the petition of one does not transfer to the assignee his claim against or lien upon the property of the other. ‘ ■

(Argued January 2, 1872;

decided May term, 1872.)

This was a motion for leave to issue an execution upon the judgment in this action. It was opposed upon the ground that plaintiff had signed ^ petition for the discharge of the defendant, W. Caldwell, under the two-thirds act, adding to his signature the declaration of release required by said act (2 R. S., 36, § 11); that assignees were duly appointed and said defendant discharged, and that the judgment herein was rendered by virtue of the assignment sold and assigned by the assignees.

The motion was denied at Special Term. Upon appeal, the General Term so modified the order as to give plaintiff leave to issue execution against the property of George Caldwell.

*681
      *Ira I). Warren*for the appellants.

*Wm. A. Ooursen*for the respondent.

Lott, Oh. 0., reads for reversal; Hunt and Gray, CO., read for affirmance.

For affirmance: Hunt, Gray and Earl. For reversal: Lott, Oh. 0.; Leonard, 0., not voting.

Order affirmed, with costs.
**FORM
10-Q/A**
 **AMENDMENT
# 1**
 
 
 **SECURITIES
AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION**
 **Washington,
D.C. 20549**
 
  
 x Quarterly Report Under Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 for the Quarterly Period Ended March
31, 2005
 
 or
 
 o Transition Report pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 for the Transition Period from _____________ to ___________
 
 
 Commission
File Number: 0 -27384____________
 
 **CAPITAL
      CORP OF THE WEST**
 (Exact
name of registrant as specified in its charter)
 
 California
      (State
      or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization)
    
    77-0405791
      IRS
      Employer ID Number
 
 550
      West Main, Merced, CA 95340
      (Address
      of principal executive offices)
 
 Registrant’s
telephone number, including area code: (209)
725-2200
 
 Former
name, former address and former fiscal year, if changed since last report: Not
applicable
 
 Indicate
by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to
be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant
was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing
requirements for the past 90 days.
 Yes x No o
 
 Indicate
by check mark whether the registrant is an accelerated filer (as defined in Rule
12b-2 of the Exchange Act). Yes x No o
 
 The
number of shares outstanding of the registrant’s common stock, no par value, as
of April 8, 2005 was 10,469,3 88.
EXHIBIT
10.67
 
  
   JOB TITLE:
    
    Vice President, Senior Corporate CounselSTART DATE:
    
    February 23, 2004SUPERVISOR:
    
    Michael Douglas, Executive Vice President & General CounselANNUAL SALARY:
    
    $200,000SIGNING BONUS:
    
    $50,000, subject to repayment agreement guidelinesBONUS TARGET:
    
    Up to 40% of base salarySTOCK OPTIONS:
    
    100,000RELOCATION:
    
    Senior Relocation Package (Level 3) as outlined in attachmentVACATION:
    
    Three Weeks (15 days) per anniversary yearLOCATION:
    
    Westlake Village, CAEMPLOYMENT STATUS:
    
    Exempt, Regular-Full Time Employee




---



##### 








---



##### 



I have read and understand the terms of this offer and consent to all of the terms and provisions
contained herein.
 Name:
    
    /s/ James S. Caulfield
    
    Date:
    
    Feb. 19, 2004
#### Clarence BENOIT, Appellant, v. HUMBLE OIL & REFINING COMPANY et al., Appellees.

No. 23448.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

Nov. 4, 1966.

*229Newton B. Schwartz, Houston, Tex., for appellant.

L. Glen Kratochvil, Sehirmeyer & Kratochvil, Houston, Tex., for appellee, George E. Light Boat Storage Inc.

Thomas A. Brown, Jr., Houston, Tex., Phelps, Dunbar, Marks, Claverie & Sims, New Orleans, La., Fulbright, Crooker, Freeman, Bates & Jaworski, Houston, Tex., of counsel, for appellee Humble Oil *&*Refining Co.

Before JONES and DYER, Circuit Judges, and SPEARS, District Judge.

PER CURIAM.

The appellant, Clarence Benoit, was captain and crew of the M/V Mister Mick, owned by the appellee, George E. Light Boat Storage, Inc. The Mick, piloted by Benoit, collided with an unlighted barge of the appellee, Humble Oil & Refining Company, with injuries to Benoit and damages to both boat and barge. Benoit brought a libel against Light and Humble. Humble filed a cross-libel against Light which, in turn, brought a cross-libel against Benoit. The cross-libels were severed and the cause was tried on the issue of liability on Benoit’s libel. The district court found that the Mick and the barge were seaworthy, and that the negligence of Benoit was the sole cause of his injuries. The district court also determined that a release given by Benoit to Light barred recovery against it. It is the conclusion of this Court that the district court’s findings as to liability are fully justified by the evidence before it. We do not, therefore, reach the question as to the validity and sufficiency of the release. The judgment on the merits is affirmed.

The district court and this Court have each denied appellant’s motions for leave to appeal in forma pauperis. The motion has been reviewed and is again denied.

The judgment from which this appeal has been taken is

Affirmed.
#### PEOPLE *v.*TOWNSEL.

Ceiminai, Law — Careying Concealed Weapon — Defense.

Self-protection is no defense to a charge of carrying a concealed weapon (CL 1948, § 750.227).

Reference for Points in Headnote

56 Am Jur, Weapons and Eirearms §§ 12, 14.

Offense of carrying weapon on person as affected by place where defendant was at the time. 73 ALB 839.

Appeal from Genesee, Freeman (Donald R.), J.

Submitted Division 2 October 9, 1968, at Lansing.

(Docket No. 4,196.)

Decided October 21, 1968.

Famous Townsel was convicted on his plea of guilty of carrying a concealed weapon. Defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

*Frank J. Kelley,*Attorney General, *Robert A. Derengo ski,*Solicitor General, *Robert F. Leonard,*Prosecuting Attorney, and *Donald A. Kuebler,*Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for the people.

*Stacey De Camp,*for defendant on appeal.

Per. Curiam.

By his plea of guilty, defendant was convicted of carrying a concealed weapon, CL 1948, §750.227 (Stat Ann 1962 Rev § 28.424), and was sentenced to a term of 3 to 5 years. On appeal, he contends he was illegally arrested and searched; he was carrying the -weapon for self-protection; his *601plea was improperly accepted; and the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing him to a term of 3 to 5 years.

We find no support in the record for defendant’s claims that he was illegally arrested and searched. If the record supported defendant’s contention that he was carrying the weapon for self-protection, which it does not, no defense would be established thereby. The record demonstrates compliance with GOB 1963, 785.3 and the sentence imposed was within the statutory limits.

Affirmed.

Quinn, P. J., and Holbrook and Vander Wal, JJ., concurred.
exhibit10_4.htm






Exhibit 10.4







April 17, 2012







PeterEdison












Dear Peter:







The 2012 bonus plan reflects the goals for our company this coming year.  Your bonus is based on pre-tax profit for the company in 2012.








	
35.00%

	
  of your cumulative salary if the company achieves a pre-tax profit of

	
$               1


	
42.50%

	
  of your cumulative salary if the company achieves a pre-tax profit of

	
$1,000,000


	
57.50%

	
  of your cumulative salary if the company achieves a pre-tax profit of

	
$2,000,000


	
85.83%

	
  of your cumulative salary if the company achieves a pre-tax profit of

	
$3,000,000


	
99.17%

	
  of your cumulative salary if the company achieves a pre-tax profit of

	
$4,000,000












In addition, you will earn 12.5% of your cumulative salary if, in the opinion of the Compensation Committee, you meet the goals outlined in the document provided to you separately and the company makes a pre-tax profit of at least $1.







I will send a quarterly update in conjunction with our earnings announcement to update you on the performance of the company versus the bonus plan.







The 2012 bonus period covers the fiscal months of February 2012 through January 2013.  You must be an active employee of Bakers Footwear Group at the time the bonus is paid to be eligible to receive your bonus.







Sincerely,






















Timothy Finley


Chairman, Compensation Committee







ss
### FILED iN 

### JiH CO!JRT OF APPEAL S 

# 114351 r 

### !Q**PR** 

## -7 

## PH q: 5 9 

## USA**~.A** 

## TZ. CLER K CAUSE NO

. 11-368-W 

### rN THE INTEREST OF IN THE DISTRICT COURT
CHRISTOPHER ANDERSON, ET AL 304TH DISTRlCT COURT
CI-IILDREN DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS 

### ORDER VACATING ORD

. ER DENYING MOTION TO TRANSFER
On this the 

# & day of September, 2013, came on to be considered the above entitled and numbered cause and the Cottrt finds 

### that the Court of**Appeals~** Fifth District Court of Texas at Dallas, has ntled that this Court vacate the Order Denying Motion to Transfer signed on April 26, 2013 in the above-referenced cause, and that this cause be transferred to Van Zandt County, Texas.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Order Denying Motion to Transfer signed in this cnusc on April 26, 2013, be and is hereby VACATED and that this cause be trAnsferred to VanZandt County, Texas. The District Clerk of the 304rh District Court**i~** ORDERED to transfer the proceedings filed herein to the Disttict Clerk of VanZandt**Cou11ty~ Tcxa~** **.** Sogncd !his 

# l2day of September, 2013

.

## ~c**.** 

# ·**"' ~** **~~ ~**  

# E"f,)r**~~** 

### "**!i ~**  

### .. '1

.**.~ ~**  .·
, ._ , .., 1 • 1 p. · • · • . If; I , • . 1 , _, , .
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

MARCUS TEAGUE,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 123 EAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 30th day of July, 2019

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jesus Arcadio Ceron MUNOZ, also known as Compa, also known as Pastuso, Defendant-Appellant

No. 17-40044 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed October 24, 2017

Heather Harris Rattan, Esq., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Eastern District of Texas, Plano, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Jesus Arcadio Cerón Munoz, Pro Se

*360Before KING, OWEN, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Jesus Arcadio Cerón Munoz has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Munoz has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cm. R. 42.2.

*

 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.
14419

#### WITHERSPOON v. STOGNER (Three Cases)

(189 S. E., 758)

*418*Messrs. Edgar A. Brown, Williams & Stewart*and *Hart Moss,*for appellants,

*Messrs. Hemphill & Hemphill, Allen M. Sapp*and /. *Means McEadden,*for respondents,

January 25, 1937.

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Fisitburne.

This is an appeal from an order 'of Hon. G. Dewey Oxner, Circuit Judge, wherein he held that the issues made by *419the pleadings were equitable and should be passed upon, by a referee. He, accordingly, referred the three causes to a special referee, with instructions to take the testimony and report his findings of fact and conclusions of law to the Court.

The appellants assign error upon several exceptions, which make the sole issue whether the Circuit Judge erred in granting the order of reference. The appellants contend that the actions are properly triable before a jury on the law side of the Court, and seek reversal.

A careful study of the record, and a review of the authorities bearing upon the issues, convince us of the correctness of the conclusions reached by the Circuit Court. We approve the order, which will be reported, and adopt it as the opinion of this Court.

The exceptions are overruled, and the judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed.

Mr. Chief Justice Stabler and Messrs. Justices Bonham and Baker concur.

Mr. ChiEE Justice Carter dissents.