alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
u. s. Deportment of T ranspo rtation Federel Aviation Administration January 11 ,201 1

Mr. LeRoy D. Baca Sheriff. County of Los Angeles Sheriffs Department Headquarters 4700 Ramona Boulevard Monterey Park. CA 91754-2169 Dear SheriffBaca: 800 Independence Avenue

. SW Wash ington , DC 20591

Administrator Babbitt asked me to respond to your letter of December 30. 20 I

### O. about the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) for Air Ambulance and Commercial Helicopter Operations. In your Jetter you asked that we grant an exemption from the rule for the Los Angeles Co unty Sheriffs Department. The purpose of an NPRM is to advise the public of a rulcmaking we are proposing and 10 request comments on that proposed rule. The comment period for this proposal opened on October 12. 2010. when the notice was published in the 

### Fede ral Register, and closed on January 10 ,20 11. We are now reviewi ng all the comments received. After our review is completed. we will make decision s on whether to change the proposed rule based on those comments. At the end of this process, a final rule may be iss ued. Because you are a public use operator, only the sections of the propo sal covering parts I
. 61, and 91 would affect you. But since the Air Ambulance and Co mmercial Helicopter Operations document is only a proposal, and no final rule has been iss ued , you are not requ ired to comply w ith it and we cannot grant an exemption. We will, however. consider your comments when developing the final rule. We have placed your letter in the public docket as a comment about thi s rul emaking. You may view the docket. and your comment , on th e internet by goi ng to the site www.regulat i o ns.gov and searching on the docket number. which is FAA-20 1 0

-0982. We thank you for yo ur participation in thi s rulcmaking. Sincerely ,

# V~~~~~ Pamela Hamilton-Powell Director. Office of Rulemaking
Dismissed and Opinion Filed May 13, 2019.

S

In The

Court of AppealsFifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-19-00430-CV

IN RE MICHAEL DWAYNE WILLIAMS, Relator

Original Proceeding from the County Criminal Court No. 10Dallas County, TexasTrial Court Cause No. MA8359627

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Myers, Molberg, and NowellOpinion by Justice Nowell

In this original proceeding, relator seeks a writ of mandamus directing the trial court to rule on relator’s article 11.072 application for writ of habeas corpus.  On May 2, 2019, the trial court signed a written order denying relator’s article 11.072 writ application.  The issues presented in this proceeding are, therefore, moot.  *See In re Williams*, No. 05-12-00485-CV, 2012 WL 1595080, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas May 7, 2012, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.).  Accordingly, we dismiss relator’s petition for writ of mandamus as moot.  

190430F.P05

	–1–
Teongelo Demarquez THOMAS v. STATE

CR-16-0383

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

May 26, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
#### Oscar H. Clough, Respondent, v. Patrick Murray, Appellant.

*Samuel Hand*for the respondent.

Affirmed by default, with costs.
William G. GREEN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-4766

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 28, 2018

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, Joel Arnold, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

In this *Anders*1 appeal, we affirm Appellant's judgment and sentence, but remand for the trial court to correct two scrivener's errors in the order revoking his probation. Although the trial court orally pronounced its finding that Appellant violated Condition 5 by committing the lesser-included offense of battery, Condition 7 by using intoxicants to excess, and Special Condition 5 by failing to abstain entirely from the use of alcohol, the revocation order states that he violated the conditions of his probation in material respect by "[v]iolation of Conditions 5, 5, Special Condition 12, 7, Special Condition 5, 2, and Special condition 3."2 Additionally, Appellant admitted violating only Condition 7 *1296and Special Condition 5, but the revocation order states that he "[a]dmits violation," thereby incorrectly suggesting that he admitted violation as to each condition. We, therefore, remand for the trial court to correct the revocation order. *See**Harris v. State* , 229 So.3d 444, 444 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017) (affirming a judgment and sentence in an *Anders* appeal, but remanding for the trial court to correct the revocation order to conform to its oral pronouncement as to which alleged violations supported revocation and to accurately reflect the offense for which the appellant was on probation); *see also**Williams v. State* , 138 So.3d 1102, 1103 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) ; *Nickolas v. State* , 66 So.3d 1077 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011). Appellant need not be present. *See**Williams* , 138 So.3d at 1103.

AFFIRMED and REMANDED .

Lewis, Makar, and M.K. Thomas, JJ., concur.

1

*Anders v. California* , 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).

2

Initially, the State alleged two violations of Condition 5, violations of Special Conditions 3, 5, and 12, and violations of Conditions 2 and 7. At the violation of probation hearing, the trial court granted the State's motions to dismiss one of the alleged violations of Condition 5, the alleged violation of Condition 2, and the alleged violations of Special Conditions 3 and 12. With regard to the remaining alleged violation of Condition 5, committing the new law offense of aggravated battery, the State argued for a finding of the lesser-included offense of battery.
IB 

Union Calendar No. 340 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6316 

[Report No. 118–413] 

To amend title 40, United States Code, to establish an expiration date 

of certain committee resolutions with respect to leases or projects, and 

for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 8, 2023 

Ms. TITUS (for herself and Mr. PERRY) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

MARCH 7, 2024 

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union 

and ordered to be printed 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6316 RH

A BILL 

To amend title 40, United States Code, to establish an 

expiration date of certain committee resolutions with respect to leases or projects, and for other purposes. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 6316 RH

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

3 SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AUTHORIZATIONS. 

4 Section 3307 of title 40, United States Code, is 

5 amended by adding at the end the following: 

6 ‘‘(i) EXPIRATION OF COMMITTEE RESOLUTIONS.— 

7 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Unless a lease is awarded 

8 or a construction, alteration, repair, design, or ac9 quisition project is initiated not later than 5 years 

10 after the resolution approvals adopted by the Com11 mittee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the 

12 House of Representatives or the Committee on Envi13 ronment and Public Works of the Senate pursuant 

14 to subsection (a), such resolutions shall be deemed 

15 expired. 

16 ‘‘(2) APPLICATION.—This subsection shall only 

17 apply to resolutions approved after the date of en18 actment of this subsection.’’. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
Union Calendar No. 340 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6316 

[Report No. 118–413] 

A BILL 

To amend title 40, United States Code, to establish 

other purposes. tions with respect to leases or projects, and for an expiration date of certain committee resoluMARCH 7, 2024 

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 

State of the Union and ordered to be printed 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, March 15, 2016. 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, March 15, 2016 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A16D0272. OSCAR REYES v. THE STATE.
Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary 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 Superior Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record transmitted to the Court of Appeals.
LC NUMBERS: 85R009
#### Joseph Pike, Respondent, *v.*Joseph Walter, Appellant.

(Argued January 4, 1872;

decided May term, 1872.)

Action for the conversion of certain farm stock. Defendant leased to plaintiff his farm. The lease contained a provi sion that defendant was to have certain stock, consisting of cows, sheep, etc.; he was to pay as rent one-half of the pro*682ducts of the farm and stock. When any of said property was sold or fit for market, the avails were to be equally divided. Said plaintiff was to leave as much worth of stock on the premises as he took. The property in question was part of the stock delivered to plaintiff which were unsold and remained on the premises at the end of the term. Defendant took possession and refused to deliver. The value of the stock in question was appraised at the end of the year by agreement, and showed an increase in value over the first . appraisal of $303, for which plaintiff obtained judgment.

*George Sidney Camp*for the appellant.

*C. E. Martin*for the respondent.

Lott, Ch. C., reads for affirmance, upon the ground, that by the lease, the title to the property was vested in plaintiff. Leonard, C., concurred.

Earl, C.-, for affirmance.

The parties were joint tenants,

plaintiff’s interest being the increased value; and defendant, having leased the property to another, was "liable for conversion.

Hunt, C.> for reversal.

Plaintiff was lessee merely, and

bound to return the specific articles.

Gray, 0., for reversal, unless plaintiff stipulates to reduce judgment one-half, on the ground that plaintiff was only entitled to one-half the increase.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Capital Corp of the West(the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2004 as filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),I, R. Dale McKinney, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer ofthe Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuantto Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)                                  TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

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

 

 
| Date:  | November 5, 2004                    | /s/ R. Dale McKinney |   |
|--------|-------------------------------------|----------------------|--------|
|   | R. Dale McKinney                    |                 |
|   | Executive Vice  President and Chief |                 |
|   | Financial Officer                   |                 |

 

1

----
454 A.2d 150

#### Commonwealth v. Barclay, Appellant.

Petition for Allowance of Appeal Denied April 4, 1983.

Submitted December 9, 1981.

William P. Fedullo, for appellant; Jane C. Greenspan, Assistant District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.

Before SPAETH, MONTGOMERY and LIPEZ, JJ.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 33 (Thursday, February 17, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 9100]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-03408]


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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice: 11655]


Notice of Determinations; Additional Culturally Significant 
Objects Being Imported for Exhibition--Determinations: ``Through 
Vincent's Eyes: Van Gogh and His Sources'' Exhibition

SUMMARY: On October 8, 2021, notice was published on page 56345 of the 
Federal Register (volume 86, number 193) of determinations pertaining 
to certain objects to be included in an exhibition entitled ``Through 
Vincent's Eyes: Van Gogh and His Sources.'' Notice is hereby given of 
the following determinations: I hereby determine that certain 
additional objects being imported from abroad pursuant to an agreement 
with their foreign owner or custodian for temporary display in the 
aforementioned exhibition at the Santa Barbara Museum of Art, Santa 
Barbara, California, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues 
yet to be determined, are of cultural significance, and, further, that 
their temporary exhibition or display within the United States as 
aforementioned is in the national interest. I have ordered that Public 
Notice of these determinations be published in the Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chi D. Tran, Program Administrator, 
Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-
632-6471; email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#8efdebedfae7e1e0bcbabbb7cefdfaeffaeba0e9e1f8"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="9deef8fee9f4f2f3afa9a8a4ddeee9fce9f8b3faf2eb">[email protected]</span></a>). The mailing address is U.S. 
Department of State, L/PD, 2200 C Street NW (SA-5), Suite 5H03, 
Washington, DC 20522-0505.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The foregoing determinations were made 
pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 
(79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), E.O. 12047 of March 27, 1978, the 
Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681, 
et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of Authority No. 234 
of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236-3 of August 28, 
2000, and Delegation of Authority No. 523 of December 22, 2021.

Stacy E. White,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Professional and Cultural Exchanges, 
Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2022-03408 Filed 2-16-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-05-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### Helen LE; Khang Ninh, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Richard E. MCGREEVY; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-17308

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*379Submitted May 24, 2017 *

Filed June 1, 2017

Helen Le, Pro Se

Khang Ninh, Pro Se

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and SILVERMAN and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Helen Le and Khang Ninh appeal pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing their action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, *Carolina Cas. Ins. Co. v. Team Equipment, Inc.,*741 F.3d 1082, 1086 (9th Cir. 2014), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Le and Ninh’s action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the federal claims were too insubstantial to confer jurisdiction. *See*28 U.S.C. § 1331; *Franklin v. Or., State Welfare Div.,*662 F.2d 1337, 1342 (9th Cir. 1981) (“[T]he federal courts are without power to entertain claims otherwise within their jurisdiction if they are so attenuated and unsubstantial as to be absolutely devoid of merit.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. *See Padgett v. Wright,*587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

All pending requests and motions are denied.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
OFFICIAL NOTICE FROM COURT OFCRIMINAL APPEALS OFTEXAS P.O. BOX 12308, CAPITOL STATION, AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711 ©FF8C8AL iUSSMESa STATE ©F TEXAS PEMALTYFOK
. i-V go,, 

### 4/29/2015 PRIVATE USE N 

### BELLOTTI, CARL MATTHEW^ 09-07283-A WR-53,835-05, 

### This is to advise that the Court has^denied. without written order the application for writ ofhabeas corpus on the findings ofthe tnal court without ahearing. Abel Acosta, Clerk CARL MATTHEW BELLOTTI III 

### jAST TEXAS TREATMENT FACILITY

-TDC # 755639 UTF • nwn^-a^TM 0 2 1M

__ 

### gg e^^^S: 0004279596 APR 30 2015 A.y^-'krjSM^&SS&k MAILED FROM ZIPCODE 78701 AKA BELOTTI, CARL MATHEWIII Tr. Ct. No.

W3B VB&S2 

# HmHSVTnu7§^340
Tony Odell COHENS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-2728

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 7, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 96-7563

MARSHALL HAROLD,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.

Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge.

(CR-94-395-S, CA-96-2405-S)

Submitted: July 30, 1998

Decided: August 14, 1998

Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Marshall Harold, Appellant Pro Se. Lynne Ann Battaglia, United

States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from a district court order that concluded his

motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998)

was barred by the one-year limitations period of 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255

(West Supp. 1998). Appellant's conviction became final in May 1995,

and he filed his habeas motion on August 2, 1996. Appellant had until

April 23, 1997 to file his § 2255 motion. See Brown v. Angelone, ___

F.3d ___, 1998 WL 389030 (4th Cir. July 14, 1998) (Nos. 96-7173,

96-7208). Therefore, his motion was not time barred. For these reasons, we grant a certificate of appealability on this issue, vacate the

district court's order, and remand for further proceedings. We 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.

VACATED AND REMANDED

 2
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONS**

 

I, R. Dale McKinney, certify that:

 

1.               I have reviewed this quarterly report onForm 10-Q of Capital Corp of the West;

 

2.               Based on my knowledge, this annualreport does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit tostate a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this annual report;

 

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

 

4.               The registrant’s other certifyingofficer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosurecontrols and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:

 

a.               Designed such disclosure controls andprocedures , or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisannual report is being prepared;

 

b.              Evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this reportour conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and

 

c.               Disclosed in this report any change inthe registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred duringthe last fiscal quarter of 2003 that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting;

 

5.               The registrant’s other certifyingofficer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internalcontrol over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent function):

 

a.               All significant deficiencies andmaterial weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control overfinancial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and

 

b.              Any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

 
| Date:  August 9, 2004 | /s/ R. Dale McKinney                                 |   |
|---------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                            | R. Dale McKinney                                     |
|                            | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Daniel Adolph RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-1384

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

Filed March 28, 2017

Paul Farley, Office of the United States Attorney, District of Colorado, Denver, CO, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Meredith B. Esser, Office of the Federal Public Defender, Districts of Colorado and Wyoming, Denver, CO, for Defendant-Appellant

Before MATHESON, BACHARACH, and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Per Curiam

This matter comes on for consideration of the government’s Fed. R. App. P. 28(j) letter in which the government informs the court of the Supreme Court decision in *Beckles v. United States,*— U.S. —, 137 S.Ct. 886, 197 L.Ed.2d 145 (2017), and the defendant’s “Statement Re: *Beckles,”*in which the defendant states that he “agrees with the Government that *Beckles*forecloses relief in this case.”

Upon consideration thereof, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

The mandate shall issue forthwith.

*

 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.