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

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 105 (Friday, May 31, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 32699]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-12872]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Intent To Rule on Request to Release Airport Property 
at the Fort Worth Spinks Airport, Fort Worth, Texas

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of request to release airport property.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to rule and invite public comment on the 
release of land at the Fort Worth Spinks Airport under the provisions 
of Section 125 of the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment Reform Act 
for the 21st Century (AIR 21).

DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 1, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Comments on this application may be mailed or delivered to 
the FAA at the following address: Mr. Mike Nicely, Manager, Federal 
Aviation Administration, Southwest Region, Airports Division, Texas 
Airports Development Office, ASW-650, Fort Worth, Texas 76137-0650.
    In addition, one copy of any comments submitted to the FAA must be 
mailed or delivered to the Mr. Bill Welstead, Aviation Director, at the 
following address: 4201 N. Main St., Suite 200, Fort Worth, TX 76106.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Anthony Mekhail, Program Manager, 
Federal Aviation Administration, Texas Airports Development Office, 
ASW-650 2601 Meacham Boulevard, Fort Worth, Texas 76193-0650, 
Telephone: (817) 222-5663, email: Anthony.Mekhail@faa.gov, fax: (817) 
222-5989.
    The request to release property may be reviewed in person at this 
same location.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA invites public comment on the 
request to release property at the Fort Worth Spinks Airport under the 
provisions of the AIR 21.
    The following is a brief overview of the request:
    The City of Fort Worth requests the release of 6.915 acres of non-
aeronautical airport property. This property was incorporated into the 
airport using City and FAA funds through the AIP Program from 1983 to 
1987. The property to be released will be sold to allow for the 
extension of Stone Road along the western boundary of the Airport. Any 
person may inspect the request in person at the FAA office listed above 
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
    In addition, any person may, upon request, inspect the application, 
notice and other documents relevant to the application in person at the 
Fort Worth Spinks Airport, telephone number (817) 392-5400.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas on May 22, 2013.
Kelvin L. Solco,
Manager, Airports Division.
[FR Doc. 2013-12872 Filed 5-30-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
```
II

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 767

To amend the Clean Air Act to extend the deadline for the imposition

of sanctions under section 179 of the Act that relate to a State vehicle

inspection and maintenance program, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MAY 9 (legislative day, MAY 1), 1995

Mr. DOMENICI introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on Environment and Public Works

A BILL

To amend the Clean Air Act to extend the deadline for

the imposition of sanctions under section 179 of the

Act that relate to a State vehicle inspection and maintenance program, 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. EXTENSION OF SANCTIONS DEADLINE.

4 (a) EXTENSION.—Section 179(a) of the Clean Air

5 Act (42 U.S.C. 7509(a)) is amended in the matter follow6 ing paragraph (4) by inserting ‘‘(or, in the case of a re7 quirement relating to a State vehicle inspection and main8 tenance program, 30 months)’’ after ‘‘18 months’’.
2

•S 767 IS

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

2 subsection (a) shall take effect with respect to any finding,

3 disapproval, or determination made under section 179(a)

4 of the Clean Air Act after the date that is 18 months prior

5 to the date of enactment of this Act.

Æ
[4910-13-PI

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Fede.-al Aviation Administration

14 eFR Part 39

ACTION: Final rule. o

above. This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (Me

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the products I' ••••.•.•• <.=fC,H.rul\(

(DOT).

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration Of AA), Department of Transportation

100 & 440) Airplanes

R1N 212o-AA64

Ainvortbioess Directives; Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2B 19 (Regional Jet Seri

~$Y"lIO\.

[Docket No. FAA-2010-0482;,Directorate Identifier 2009-NM-225-AD; Amendm nt 1-\••••-11'1

l(Ptfll 17-11 '" ~ "0",

39-*****; AD 2010-**-**] LBr./J:-"-..-

~i{I/blD

originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsa

condition on an aviation product. The MeAl dtsCribeS the unsafe condition as:

There have been several Stick Pusher Capstan Shaft failures causing

severe degradation of the stick p~her function. This directive ~sissuoo to

revise the first flight of the day check of the stall protection system to

detect degradation of the stick pusher function. It also introduces a new

repetitive maintenance task to limit exposure to dormant failure of the

stick pusher capstan shaft.

"oH

Dormant loss or severe degradation of the sticKpusher function could result in reduc

controllability of the airplane. We are issuing!fis AD to require actions to correct th em

unsafe condition on these products. I

DATES: This AD becomes effective [INSER~ DATE 35 DAYS AFTER DATE OF

FAA Form 1360-14.1 (6-89) OFFICIAl FILE COPY t. u.s. GOVERNMENT Pf'IINTlNG OFfICI:.: 1995 - 769-211
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lena Kenya IRVINE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-17037 Non-Argument Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

(July 12, 2017)

Michael B. Billingsley, Thomas E. Bor-tón, IV, Gregory R. Dimler, Nicole Gros-noff, Eric W. Hunter, Kathryn McHugh, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Jenny Lynn Smith, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Birmingham, AL, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Before MARCUS, MARTIN and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

L. Dale Jones, appointed counsel for Lena Kenya Irvine in this direct criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant and filed a brief pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Cur independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion *848to withdraw is GRANTED and Irvine’s conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. George Calvin WINDLEY, a.k.a. G, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-10208

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 8, 2017 *

Filed May 11, 2017

Before: REINHARDT, LEAVY, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM**

George Calvin Windley appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 121-month sentence imposed on remand following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to engage in sex trafficking, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1594(c). Pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Windley’s counsel has filed, a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided Windley the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.

Windley waived his right to appeal his sentence. Our independent review of the record pursuant to *Penson v. Ohio,*488 *969U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), discloses no arguable issue as to the validity of the waiver. *See United States v. Watson,*582 F.3d 974, 986-88 (9th Cir. 2009). We accordingly dismiss the appeal. *See id.*at 988.

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

DISMISSED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
|    |                                                                                                        |
|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Sabine Pass LNG, L.P.; and |

|    |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 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. |

|                                                 |
|-------------------------------------------------|
|                                                 |
|                                            |
| /s/ CHARIF SOUKI                                |
| Charif Souki                                    |
| Chief Executive Officer of                      |
| Sabine Pass LNG-GP, LLC, the general partner of |
| Sabine Pass LNG, L.P.                           |
T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N NO. 03-14-00196- CV In re K evin Bierwi rth ORIGINA L PR OCEEDING F ROM WI LLIAM SO N COUNTY

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N Relator’s pe tition for writ of injunction is denied. See Tex. R. App. P . 52.8(a) .

__________________________________________ J eff Rose, J ustice Be fore J ustices Pury ear , Pemberton, and Rose Filed: Apr il 10, 2014
### BILL OF COSTS

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, SIXTH DISTRICT, AT TEXARKANA

No. 06

- 14

- 00053

- CV

In the Matter of D.B.

(No. 4

- JV

- 12 IN 6TH DISTRICT C OURT OF LAMAR COUNTY )

TYPE OF FEE CHARGES PAID BY

MOTION FEE

REPORTER'S RECORD

CLERK'S RECORD

FILING $10.00 $1,4 07.60 $0.00 $195.00 EXEMPT

INDIGENT

INDIGENT

INDIGENT GARY YOUNG, DIST ATT Y

DON BIARD, APPT ATTY DON BIARD, APPT ATTY DON BIARD, APPT ATTY

Balance of costs owing to the Sixth Court of Appeals, Texarkana, Texas: 0.00

Court costs in this cause shall be p aid as per the Judgment issued by this Court.

I, DEBRA AUTREY, CLERK OF THE SIXTH COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF TEXAS, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true and correct copy of the cost bill of THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH DI STRICT OF TEXAS, showing the charges and payments, in the above numbered and styled cause, as the same appears of record in this office.

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, witness my hand and the Seal of

the COURT OF APPEALS for the Sixth District of Texas, this April 16, 2015

.

DEBRA AUTREY, CLERK

By ___

________________________ Deputy
* 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 Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

January 29, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-60184

Summary Calendar

CHARLES CHIE OSABEDE, also known as Charles Chize Osabede,

Petitioner,

versus

ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent.

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

Petition for Review of an Order of

the Board of Immigration Appeals

No. A75 232 237

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

Before SMITH, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Charles Osabede, a native and citizen of Nigeria, petitions

for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”)

denying as untimely his motion to reopen the removal proceedings

that he filed in December 2005. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C);

8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). In July 1999 the BIA dismissed Osabede’s

appeal of a decision by an immigration judge denying his application for asylum and withholding of removal and ordering that he be
removed to Brazil. Osabede’s motion to reopen proceedings was due

within ninety days of the date of entry of a final administrative

order of removal. See § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i). 

In his motion to reopen, Osabede frivolously suggested that

his motion was based on his failure to appear at his immigration

hearing, an allegation that is flatly contradicted by the record of

that hearing. Although a failure to appear may support the filing

of an untimely motion to reopen under an exception enumerated in

§ 1229a(c)(7)(C)(iii) and may support an exercise of jurisdiction

by this court, see Panjwani v. Gonzales, 401 F.3d 626, 632 (5th

Cir. 2005), Osabede has abandoned any reliance on such exception in

his petition for review, see Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830,

833 (5th Cir. 2003).

Osabede’s petition for review relies on no exception listed in

§ 1229a(c)(7)(C) and cites no equitable basis for avoiding the

statutory ninety-day deadline for filing a motion to reopen. Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction over Osabede’s petition, because

there is “‘no meaningful standard against which to review’” the

BIA’s decision. See Enriquez-Alvarado v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 246,

249 (5th Cir. 2004) (citation omitted). The petition for review is

thus DISMISSED, and Osabede’s motion to stay removal is DENIED.
#### A. C. COLEMAN, Jr., and James Dillard Johnson, Appellants, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 20348.

United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit.

Oct. 13, 1966.

Arthur W. Kurteff, San Jose, Cal., for appellant Johnson.

Jay B. Pendleton, San Jose, Cal., for appellant Coleman.

Wm. P. Copple, U. S. Atty., Lawrence Turoff, Asst. U. S. Atty., Phoenix, Ariz., for appellee.

Before MADDEN, Judge of the United States Court of Claims, and KOELSCH and BROWNING, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

The defendants have appealed from judgments of conviction upon verdicts finding them guilty of bank robbery. 18 U.S.C. 2113(a). Finding no error, we affirm.

The record contains substantial evidence that warrants the jury’s decision. It is not the province of an appellate court to weigh the evidence and determine the credibility of witnesses. And the trial judge did not err in instructing the jury to draw' no adverse inference against defendants because of their failure to testify. To the contrary, his charge constituted a faithful compliance with the “implied direction” given district judges by Congress to fulfil] “their traditional duty in guiding the jury by indicating the considerations relevant to the latter’s verdict on the facts.” Bruno v. United States, 308 U.S. 287, 293, 60 S.Ct. 198, 200, 84 L.Ed. 257 (1939). Similarly, his cautionary instruction concerning testimony of an accomplice was proper, for the jury might have considered the government’s witness Hunter, who wrote the holdup note, a participant in the crime. But even if abstract, the instruction was beneficial rather than harmful to defendants. Phelps v. United States, 252 F.2d 49 (5th Cir. 1958).

The remaining assignments, urged by one of the defendants alone, are so patently lacking in substance that they do not merit discussion.
Court of Appeals

Twelfth Court of Appeals District at Tyler

BILL OF COSTS

Court of Appeals No. 12-15-00222-CV

Trial Court No. CV-12-9397

Debbie Tarver

Vs.

Josette Newberry and Monica Newberry

DOCUMENTS FILED AMOUNT FEE PAID BY

Indigent

Required Texas.gov efiling fee

Filing

Supreme Court chapter 51 fee

Motion fee

$25.00

$30.00

$100.00

$50.00

$10.00

Indigent

Indigent

Indigent

Indigent

Julie L Conn

TOTAL: $215.00

I, Pam Estes, Clerk of the Court of Appeals, Twelfth Court of Appeals District at Tyler, Texas,

certify that the above copy of the Bill of Costs is true and correct. GIVEN UNDER MY HAND

AND SEAL OF SAID COURT, at Tyler, this 30th day of November 2015, A.D.

PAM ESTES, CLERK

By:_____________________________

Katrina McClenny, Chief Deputy Clerk

FILE COPY
#### Arthur SWEETING, Petitioner v. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD, Respondent

2016-2540

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

July 19, 2017

Melanie L. Bostwick, Orrick, Herring-ton & Sutcliffe LLP, Washington, DC, argued for petitioner. Also represented by Eric Shumsky; Anjali Dalal, New York, NY.

Katrina Lederer, Office of the General Counsel, Merit Systems Protection Board, Washington, DC, argued for respondent. Also represented by Bryan G. Polisuk, Katherine M. Smith.

(Prost, Chief Judge, Newman and Linn, Circuit Judges).

JUDGMENT

Per Curiam

This Cause having been heard and considered, it is Ordered and Adjudged:

AFFIRMED. *See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
Exhibit 27

                      Financial Data Schedule

 "This schedule contains summary financial information extracted
from June 30, 1999 10QSB and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements."
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-START>                  APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                    JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                          24,179
<SECURITIES>                    0
<RECEIVABLES>                   56,752
<ALLOWANCES>                    0
<INVENTORY>                     14,276,515
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                80,931
<PP&E>                          49,937
<DEPRECIATION>                  (1,480,493)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  13,465,559
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           18,602
<BONDS>                         16,300
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>           0
<PREFERRED>                     1,212
<COMMON>                        48013
<OTHER-SE>                      13,223,208
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    13,465,559
<SALES>                         0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                0
<CGS>                           0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                   6,852
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                 (6,852)
<INCOME-TAX>                    0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>             (6,852)
<DISCONTINUED>                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                 0
<CHANGES>                       0
<NET-INCOME>                    (6,852)
<EPS-BASIC>                   .000
<EPS-DILUTED>                   .000


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6195 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

114th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6195

    To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow charitable 
  organizations to make statements relating to political campaigns if 
such statements are made in the ordinary course of carrying out its tax 
                            exempt purpose.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 28, 2016

 Mr. Scalise (for himself and Mr. Jody B. Hice of Georgia) introduced 
  the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and 
                                 Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow charitable 
  organizations to make statements relating to political campaigns if 
such statements are made in the ordinary course of carrying out its tax 
                            exempt purpose.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``The Free Speech Fairness Act''.

SEC. 2. ALLOWING 501(C)(3) ORGANIZATION TO MAKE STATEMENTS RELATING TO 
              POLITICAL CAMPAIGN IN ORDINARY COURSE OF CARRYING OUT ITS 
              TAX EXEMPT PURPOSE.

    (a) In General.--Section 501 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
    ``(s) Special Rule Relating to Political Campaign Statements of 
Organization Described in Subsection (c)(3).--
            ``(1) In general.--For purposes of subsection (c)(3) and 
        sections 170(c)(2), 2055, 2106, 2522, and 4955, an organization 
        shall not fail to be treated as organized and operated 
        exclusively for a purpose described in subsection (c)(3), nor 
        shall it be deemed to have participated in, or intervened in 
        any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any 
        candidate for public office, solely because of the content of 
        any statement which--
                    ``(A) is made in the ordinary course of the 
                organization's regular and customary activities in 
                carrying out its exempt purpose, and
                    ``(B) results in the organization incurring not 
                more than de minimis incremental expenses.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to taxable years ending after the date of the enactment of this 
Act.
                                 <all>
```
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-8031

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JOSUE MONROY, a/k/a Feo,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District 

Judge. (8:10-cr-00237-AW-1)

Submitted: March 28, 2013 Decided: April 4, 2013

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Josue Monroy, Appellant Pro Se. George Jarrod Hazel, Arun G. 

Rao, Assistant United States Attorneys, Greenbelt, Maryland, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Josue Monroy appeals the district court’s order 

denying his motion for a reduction of sentence pursuant to 18 

U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006). We have reviewed the record and 

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the 

reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Monroy, 

No. 8:10-cr-00237-AW-1 (D. Md. Nov. 1, 2012). We dispense with 

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED