alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of the Estate of Celeste J. Payne, Also Known as Celeste M. Johnson, Deceased.

Surrogate’s Court, Nassau County,

July 10, 1973.

*Edmund J. Kane*for petitioner. *Jeffrey D. Forchelli,*guardian ad litem.

John D. Bennett, S.

This is a petition for letters of administration by the father of the decedent. Decedent died survived by her husband who would normally have a prior right to letters; however, under SCPA 707, the husband is ineligible to receive letters, being an infant. Pursuant to SCPA 1001 *426(subd. 4, par. [a]), when a distributee is an infant and has a prior right to letters, the court may grant letters to his guardian if he is eligible and qualifies.

The guardian ad litem appointed on behalf of the husband ■states the latter only has a passive interest in this estate. The petitioner alleges that the decedent, his daughter, was separated from her spouse and resided with and was supported by him. There is, however, no allegation that the surviving spouse is disqualified to act.

Apparently, this estate is close to if not insolvent since the petitioner indicates that it is only his estimate that assets will be sufficient to pay the funeral bill (without even mentioning administration expenses which would be prior). The guardian ad litem argues that, since the estate is concededly very small, the petitioner, as decedent’s father, will in no event *“*take a share ” in this estate — his interest only commencing after $25,000 (EPTL 4-1.1, subd. [a], par. [4]) — and accordingly he may not be appointed administrator. While SCPA 1001 merely requires that letters issue in the proper order to *“*persons who are distributees,”' the definition of a “ distributee ” is a person entitled to “ take or share ” in the estate (EPTL 1-2.5). Accordingly, the petitioner has no status as a distributee to be appointed administrator *(Matter of Vertuccio,*N. Y. L. J., June 25, 1959, p. 9, col. 3).

The husband will be given until July 27, 1973 to qualify as administrator through a guardian appointed for him. If no such application for letters on behalf of a guardian is made by that date, letters will issue to the Public Administrator or to the petitioner as a creditor if, in the discretion of the court, the Public Administrator is permitted to renounce upon a motion made by him for such relief (SCPA 1003, subd. 3).
----- Forwarded by Melanie King/RTP/USEPA/US on 08/10/2010 02:30 PM

----- |------------> | From: | |------------> >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------| |Melanie King/RTP/USEPA/US | >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------| |------------> | To: | |------------> >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------| |Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov | >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------| |------------> | Cc: | |------------> >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------| |Fred Talcott/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Michael Horowitz/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, RobertJ Wayland/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA | >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------| |------------> | Date: | |------------> >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------| |08/10/2010 02:15 PM | >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------| |------------> | Subject: | |------------> >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------| |SI RICE NESHAP preamble/reg | >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------|

Hi Cortney, Attached is the latest version. It shows the changes we have made since yesterday based on OMB's comments, and also some edits to correct typos and other minor errors that we found. (See attached file: Final SI RICE NESHAP Preamble-Reg 8-10-10 redline.doc)(See attached file: Final SI RICE NESHAP Preamble-Reg 8-10-10.doc) Melanie King Energy Strategies Group Sector Policies and Programs Division Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Mail Code D243-01 RTP, NC 27711 Phone: (919) 541-2469 Fax: (919) 541-5450 king.melanie@epa.gov
D.J., a juvenile, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D17-2687

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed May 30, 2018

D.J., a juvenile, in proper person.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, for appellee.

Before ROTHENBERG, C.J., and SUAREZ and LAGOA, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
**REGULATORY EVALUATION**

**Directorate Identifier:**

___2013

_______ - NM -

_____ 24 3

_____ - 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 significan t? 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)
Ryan DOYLE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-1378

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Opinion filed July 6, 2018

Ryan Doyle, South Bay, pro se.

No Appearance for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant seeks review of the trial court's denial of his rule 3.850 motion. We affirm as to Grounds One, Three, Four and Five. However, we reverse as to Ground Two because it was facially sufficient and the attached records do not conclusively refute Appellant's claim.

We remand for the postconviction court to reconsider Ground Two and either conduct an evidentiary hearing or attach records conclusively refuting Appellant's claim set forth in Ground Two.

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; and REMANDED.

TORPY, LAMBERT and EDWARDS, JJ., concur.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Ramon RESENDEZ-GONZALEZ, also known as Ramon Gonzales Resendez, also known as Ramon Gonzalez Resendez, also known as Ramon Rezendez Gonzalez, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-40818 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed May 4, 2017

REVISED May 8, 2017

Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Ramon Resendez-Gonzalez, Pro Se

Before JONES, WIENER, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Ramon Resendez-Gonzalez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*886 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v.*
      *277
      *Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Re-sendez-Gonzalez has filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief, Resendez-Gonzalez’s response, 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 Cir. 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.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Brenda Lee FORD, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-11237 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed August 4, 2017

Brenda Lee Ford, Pro Se

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Brenda Lee Ford, federal prisoner # 26255-077, was convicted for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine and possession with intent to distribute cocaine. Ford filed a motion for production of records of the juror selection in her criminal trial. Ford asserted that she required the records to support her claim that she was deprived of her constitutional right to a fair and impartial jury trial because of purposeful discrimination in excluding blacks from her jury. The district court construed the motion for production as a motion seeking relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and dismissed it without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction for failure to obtain authorization from this court to file a successive § 2255 motion. The district court also denied Ford’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal finding that the appeal was frivolous, filed in bad faith, and without merit. Ford’s notice of appeal is construed as a motion for a certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal the district court’s denial of her motion. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 22(b)(2). She has also filed a motion for leave to proceed IFP on appeal.

A COA is required to appeal the denial of an unauthorized successive § 2255 motion. *See Cardenas v.*Thaler, 651 F.3d 442, 443 (5th Cir. 2011). The district court did not determine whether Ford was entitled to a COA. Because the district court has not issued a COA ruling, we assume without deciding that we lack jurisdiction over the appeal. *See*Rule 11(a), Rules Governing § 2255 Proceedings; *Cardenas,*651 F.3d at 444 & nn.1-2. Nevertheless, we decline to remand this case to the district court for a COA ruling because a remand would be futile. *See United States v. Alvarez,*210 F.3d 309, 310 (5th Cir. 2000). Ford’s motion was properly construed as an unauthorized successive § 2255 motion. *See Gonzalez v. Crosby,*545 U.S. 524, 531-32, 125 S.Ct. 2641, 162 L.Ed.2d 480 (2005); *United States v. Remandes,*708 F.3d 680, 681 (5th Cir. 2013). Because the district *331court lacked jurisdiction to consider Ford’s motion, we lack jurisdiction to review the denial of that motion on the merits. *See United States v. Key,*205 F.3d 773, 774-75 (5th Cir. 2000).

Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction, and Ford’s motions for a COA and leave to proceed IFP are DENIED AS MOOT.

*

 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 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 23 - 0709 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. CISSY DEAN MANYHIDES,

Defendant and Appellant .

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including May 17, 2024, within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

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

April 9 2024

04/09/2024
Case Number: DA 23-0709
RE: Pio Pico PSD Application Visibility Analysis

Steve Hill to: Gerardo Rios 04/13/2012 12:26 PM

Cc:

Cleveland Holladay, Craig Kebodeaux , Dave Jenkins, 

"grchandler@apexpowergroup.com", Gary Rubenstein, "McKinsey, 

John A." , Joseph Lapka, Roger Kohn, "Moore, Steve"

Attached is the information requested by EPA. 

Please contact me if you have any questions.

--Steve Hill

From: Gerardo Rios [mailto:Rios.Gerardo@epamail.epa.gov] 

Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2012 1:47 PM

To: Steve Hill

Cc: Cleveland Holladay; Craig Kebodeaux; Dave Jenkins; grchandler@apexpowergroup.com; Gary 

Rubenstein; McKinsey, John A.; Joseph Lapka; Roger Kohn; Moore, Steve

Subject: RE: Pio Pico PSD Application Visibility Analysis

Hi Steve,

After review of the information you have sent us and internal discussions, we are providing you feedback

on the materials you submitted.

Regarding the Kiewit letter, the letter provides information regarding the difference in cost between a 

simple cycle facility and a combined cycle facility. The information is useful, however, the letter did not 

provide an analysis whether or not a combined cycle facility would be cost prohibitive.

Regarding GHG BACT for the turbines, we are still waiting for you to submit the key activities that will be

performed for the turbines as part of the BACT analysis. During the March 7th meeting, we discussed

this issue. While we are not expecting a submittal of the whole maintenance manual, we need to have

the key tasks that are most important for maintaining efficiency of the turbines and the frequency at 

which these tasks will be conducted.

As you know, obtaining this information is critical to us moving forward with the development of the draft 

permit and the technical support document.

Thank you for your attention to this in advance. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me or 

Roger Kohn at (415) 972-3973.

Gerardo C. Rios

Chief, Permits Office

Air Division

PHONE:(415) 972-3974

FAX: (415) 947-3579 GHG_BACT-w-attachments-04-13-12.pdf
Petition for Exemption under Section 333

Benjamin C. Davis

833 Rayston St. 

Deltona, FL 32725

407-923-2365

Operation Objectives

Aerial photography, videography, inspections, surveying, real estate, agriculture, search and rescue.

Granting this exemption would fill a need in this community and help local businesses in their everyday 

operations by creating a new and unique service. I would also like to volunteer my services to local 

government for search and rescue if they feel I could be of help.

Unmanned Aircraft to be used:

DJI Phantom 3 Professional and DJI Inspire

Safety 

Safety will be rule number one including the operation of the UA and the surrounding area where the 

UA will be in service. Detailed pre-flight checklist and inspection of all areas of the UA will be performed 

before each and every flight. Regular maintenance and repair (if needed) will be conducted after each 

and every flight to ensure a safe and successful operation. PIC will adhere to all safety requirements set 

forth by the FAA concerning the UA, surrounding area of the operation including persons and property, 

always operating the UA within a VLOS and flying below 400 feet with speeds below 20 knots. Strict 

adherence to all regulations will be followed. If needed for a particular operation, a visual 

outlook/guide will be present for safety and assistance. Insurance and Liability will also be purchased.

Pilot in Command

I, Benjamin C. Davis will be the sole PIC. I hold a Private Pilot Certification issued on 3-7-1987 under 

certification number/SSN 240-39-3107. I have been a radio control enthusiast for 30+ years with 

hundreds of combined hours and experience in flying. I’m in excellent health and have a current Florida 

Driver’s License/ D120-063-68-260-0

Aircraft registration was submitted on 12-14-15 with proof of purchase and $5.00 fee.
Thank you for your consideration and I look forward to the exciting possibilities that unmanned aircraft 

have to offer.

Benjamin C. Davis
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Danny TARIN, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-50492 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed June 14, 2017

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of - Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Danny Tarín, Pro Se

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, PRADO, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Danny Tarin has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed briefs in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 *299S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Tarin has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s briefs and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivo-lous 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 Cir. 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.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Felipe BARRIENTOS, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-51090 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed September 12, 2017

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Felipe Barrientos, Pro Se

Before JONES, SMITH, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

In 2012, Felipe Barrientos pleaded guilty to possessing, with intent to distribute, more than 100 kilograms of marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841. He received an enhanced statutory-minimum sentence of 120 months’ imprisonment.

Proceeding *pro se,*Barrientos appeals the denial of his motion, under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), for a sentence reduction based on Sentencing Guidelines Amendment 782. Although acknowledging he received the statutory minimum, Barrientos contends he is eligible for. a reduction, because, *inter alia,*the Guidelines are no longer mandatory.

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), a district court has discretion to modify a sentence “based on a [Guidelines] range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission”. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c). But, Barrientos’ sentence was not “based on” the Guidelines; and the court lacked authority to reduce his sentence below the 10-year minimum sentence required by statute. *United States v. Carter,*595 F.3d 575, 578-81 (5th Cir. 2010); 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B)(vii). Moreover, 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) does not permit a full resentencing, but merely permits a sentence reduction under limited circumstances specified by the Sentencing Commission. *Dillon v. United States,*560 U.S. 817, 825-26, 130 S.Ct. 2683, 177 L.Ed.2d 271 (2010); *United States v. Doublin,*572 F.3d 235, 238 (5th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.

*

 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.
#### John E. Eaton and Another *versus*Nathaniel Lynde.

A delivers yarn to B, who was to procure it to be made into cloth, for a commission. B delivers it to C, to weave it at an agreed price. It was holden that the general property remained in A; that B had the special property; and that C, as the servant of B, had no property in the yarn, or the cloth.

Trover for eighty yards of cotton cloth. The case was mus. Messrs. *Slater 8f Co.*had delivered a quantity of yarn to the plaintiffs, upon an agreement that they should procure it to be woven into cloth, for which *Slater &f Co.*were to allow the plaintiffs a commission. One *Benson*had received the yarn of the plaintiffs to weave it for an agreed price, which the plaintiffs were to pay him in goods from their store. *Benson*having woven the yarn into cloth, the defendant, a deputy sheriff, attached it, at the suit of a creditor of *Benson,*as his property, though informed of all the circumstances by *Benson.*

The only question submitted to the Court was, whether the plaintiffs had such a property in the yarn as would maintain trover.

It was contended by *Burnside,*for the defendant, that, as *Slater &f Co.*had the general property, the special property was in *Benson;*and that the plaintiffs were mere agents of *Slater Co.,*and had no property at all in the yarn, or in the cloth made from the yarn.

*But the Court*

were of opinion that, as the plaintiffs had received the yarn, and had undertaken to get it woven, upon a commission to be paid them by *Slater & Co.,*the special property was in the *plaintiffs—Benson*being their agent, or servant, to weave the clot i for an agreed price; —and therefore ordered

*Judgment for the plaintiffs.*
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.



## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 2009-3197 HENRY E. GOSSAGE,

Petitioner,

v. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, Respondent. Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection Board in

SE0731010261-1-5. ON MOTION Before MAYER Circuit Judge. ORDER Henry E. Gossage submits motions requesting extensions of time totaling 60 days to file his brief. Upon consideration thereof, IT IS ORDERED THAT: The motions are granted. Gossage's brief is due within 60 days of the date of filing of this order. No further extensions should be anticipated.
JUL 17 

## 21109 FOR THE COURT /s/ Jan Horbalv Date

cc: Henry E. Gossage Lauren S. Moore, Esq. Jan Horbaly Clerk 

### ILE

U.S. COURT

FOF ARtAIs FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT s17 ! JUL 

## 17 2009 JAN HORNY CERN
-79 -78 -77 -76 -75

37 38 39 

### ★
▲ ▲ ▲ ▲



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 500 1000 1500 500 18 12 06 00 08/25 

### NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

## Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 25 Aug 06

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 38.90 N 76.65 WMeters AGL
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED MAY 4, 2023

NO. 03

- 22

- 00699

- CV

Philip Emiabata and Sylvia Emiabata , Appellant s

v.

Shirley Borgmann , Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 126TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTIC ES BA KER, SMITH, AND JONES

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE JONES

This is an appeal from the or der signed by the tr i a l court on October 20, 2022

. Having reviewed

the record , the Court holds that appellants ha ve not prosecuted their appeal and did not

comp ly with a notice from the C lerk of this C ourt

. There fore, the Cou rt dismisses the appeal for

want of prosecution. Because appellant s are indigent and u nable to pay costs, no adjudica t i on of

costs is made.
1

Troutman, Jake (FAA)

From: Troutman, Jake (FAA)

Sent: Monday, May 11, 2015 3:49 PM

To: 'josh@allieddrones.com'

Cc: Pappas, Rob (FAA); Albuquerque, Paul (FAA)

Subject: Request for Additional Information - Allied Drones 

Dear Mr. Kornoff:

This letter is to inform you that the following information is missing from your petition (Docket No. FAA‐2014‐

0804).  This information is necessary for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to process your petition.

•             A safety case is required for nighttime operations by Order 8900.1, Volume 16, Chapter 5, Section 3, Paragraph

16‐5‐3‐7I.  The required components of a safety case and safety case format may be found in Order 8900.1, Volume 16,

Chapter 7, Section 1, Paragraph 16‐7‐1‐3.  is required by Order 8900.1, Volume 3, Chapter 8, Section 1.  If you wish for us

to proceed without this safety case and remove nighttime operations from your proposed operation please inform of us

of your intention by the requested response date listed below.

Please submit the additional information (non‐proprietary) to your docket at www.regulations.gov and submit any

proprietary information to the FAA Headquarters or electronically via e‐mail to 333exemptions@faa.gov.  If you want us

to process your request any further, we must receive the information described above by May 25, 2015.  If we do not

receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (202) 267‐9521.

Sincerely,

Jake J Troutman

Program Analyst | Rulemaking

FAA Office of Aviation Safety

Airmen and Airspace Rules Division

202‐267‐9521