alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 104 (Monday, June 1, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 29757]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-14397]


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

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

[Notice 98-069]


NASA Advisory Council (NAC), Aeronautics and Space Transportation 
Technology Advisory Committee, Task Force on NASA's Aviation 
Environmental Compatibility Research; Meeting

AGENCY: National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Pub. L. 
92-463, as amended, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration 
announces a forthcoming meeting of the NASA Advisory Council, 
Aeronautics and Space Transportation Technology Advisory Committee, 
Task Force on NASA's Aviation Environmental Compatibility Research.

DATE: Wednesday, July 22, 1998, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m..

ADDRESSES: National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Room 6H46, 
300 E Street, S.W., Washington, DC 20546.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Ms. Darlene Boykins, Office of Aeronautics and Space Transportation 
Technology, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Washington, 
DC 20546 (202/358-4743).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The meeting will be open to the public up 
the seating capacity of the room. The purpose of the meeting is to 
review actions related to the Task Force Charter listed below.

--Based on examining past application of NASA research, recommend ways 
to improve effectiveness of environmental technology transfer
--Evaluate process being used to assess and recommend NASA research 
plans in noise and emissions relative to the ``Three Pillars'' 
environmental goals
--Recommend ways to ensure the appropriate use of research in 
regulatory considerations
--Recommend ways of improving the relationship of NASA with the air 
carrier community, aircraft and engine manufacturers, other 
environmental research and technology organizations, and regulatory 
agencies with regard to environmental research and technology
--Identify critical interdependencies of environmental goals with the 
other related ``Three Pillars'' goals.

    It is imperative that the meeting be held on these dates to 
accommodate the scheduling priorities of the key participants.

    Dated: May 21, 1998.
Matthew M. Crouch,
Advisory Committee Management Officer, National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration.
[FR Doc. 98-14397 Filed 5-29-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7510-01-M
|                                                                                                       
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                       
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                               
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                                         
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                                         
|View History:                                                                                          
|                                                                                                       
|No chart available.                                                                                    
|No chart available.                                                                                    
|                                                                                                       
|                                                                                                       
|Price of Elba Island, GA Liquefied Natural Gas Exports to South Korea (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                       

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2010's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | --    
|2020's                                                                                                                            | --     | W      | --     |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 7/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 8/30/2024
2016-1585.

#### State v. Bangera.

Geauga App. No. 2015-G-0021, 2016-Ohio-4596.
EXHIBIT 21.1

             SUBSIDIARIES OF SOUTHWEST BANCORPORATION OF TEXAS, INC.



      1.    Southwest Holding Delaware, Inc.                          Delaware
      2.    Southwest Bank of Texas National Association*          United States
      3.    First National Bank of Bay City (57.834% ownership)*   United States
      4.    Mitchell Mortgage Company L.L.C.**                         Texas
      5.    Southwest/Catalyst Capital, Ltd. (99% ownership)**         Texas
      6.    Fairview, Inc.**                                           Texas




      *     Subsidiary of Southwest Holding Delaware, Inc.

      **    Subsidiary of Southwest Bank of Texas National Association
#### In the Matter of Downtown Auto Center, Inc., Appellant, v State of New York, Department of Motor Vehicles, Respondent.

[50 NYS3d 336]

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Joan B. Lobis, J.), entered on or about December 8, 2015, which denied the petition to annul the determination of respondent Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV), dated January 27, 2015, denying the reinstatement of petitioner Downtown Auto Center, Inc.’s (Downtown) licenses to repair and inspect motor vehicles based on the failure to submit required documentation, and dismissed the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

An appeal to DMV’s Appeals Board must be taken within 60 days of the date that the “license ... is denied, suspended or revoked” (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 261 [1], [2]). Here, Downtown’s administrative appeal, postmarked November 6, 2014, was untimely as to any claims that its repair shop and public inspection licenses were “seized” on March 20, 2014, yet was timely with respect to the September 9, 2014 denial of its application for the reinstatement of its licenses for failure to provide the required documentation.

The court correctly found that DMV acted rationally when it denied Downtown’s application for the reinstatement of its repair shop and public inspection station licenses for lack of documentation *(see Matter of City of New York v New York State Nurses Assn.,*130 AD3d 28, 34 [1st Dept 2015]). The DMV inspector attested that neither Downtown’s principals nor their attorney ever requested that the appointment be rescheduled, and that DMV had no record that counsel or anyone else attempted to provide the required documents later that day or at any other time. Counsel’s affirmation, submitted to supple*583ment Downtown’s article 78 petition, raised factual issues not presented before the administrative agency, i.e., that the inspector refused to adjourn the conference or accept documents from counsel later that day, which are not properly before this Court *(see Matter of Miller v Kozakiewicz,*300 AD2d 399, 400 [2d Dept 2002]).

Downtown’s contention that the court should not have reached the merits, but instead should have remanded the matter to DMV for a “full hearing” on the merits is unavailing, since once the Court found that Downtown’s failure to refute the documentary evidence failed to raise an issue of fact, “the court in which the proceeding is commenced shall itself dispose of the issues in the proceeding” (CPLR 7804 [g]; *see also Matter of Dequito v New School for Gen. Studies,*68 AD3d 559, 559 [1st Dept 2009]).

Further, while a license, such as a driver’s license, cannot be revoked without due process *(see Matter of Breslow v Hults,*26 AD2d 931, 931 [1st Dept 1966]), this is a case involving reinstatement, which is akin to a new license, for which there is no property interest *(see Testwell, Inc. v New York City Dept. of Bldgs.,*80 AD3d 266, 274 [1st Dept 2010]).

Concur — Sweeny, J.P., Richter, Moskowitz, Feinman and Gische, JJ.
# DLA Director visits Energy Americas

/ Published July 26, 2019

Defense Logistics Agency Director Army Lt. Gen. Darrell Williams toured the DLA Energy Americas region in Houston, Texas, July 10-11, where he was immersed in the region’s mission roles and responsibilities.  

The director met with Defense Fuel Support Point Houston, Petromax Refinery and Intercontinental Terminals Company employees to strengthen industry partnerships and familiarization himself with refinery and terminal operations. While at Petromax, he toured the refinery, laboratory, control room, and, truck rack.  

“Warfighter First is our No. 1 priority and our success in ensuring military service readiness and combatant command lethality would not be possible without strong partnerships with industry,” Williams said in his Industry Engagement Plan. “I am convinced DLA’s early engagement, continuous communication and exchange of information with our industry partners, including small businesses, will enable us to sustain and improve our global, agile and innovative support to the Warfighter.”

Williams presented Director coins and “Ya Done Good” awards to several Americas region employees. Region leaders took the opportunity to brief him on the region’s successes and unique challenges.  

During his visit, Williams witnessed the Americas team preparing for Tropical Storm Barry weather conditions impacting the region. As Tropical Storm Barry approached the Louisiana coastline, supply planners tracked 22 defense fuel support points for inventory levels and any out-of-service conditions while regional quality assurance representatives reported on vendor actions that could affect the region’s ability to maintain the supply chain. 

“It was a great visit to Energy Americas,” Williams said. “Good to see first-hand the hard work the team does on the storm tracking and mitigations. I was also astounded by the breath and scope of Energy America’s mission to support our military services throughout the entire Western Hemisphere.  It’s truly an incredible organization, indispensable to DLA overall mission.”

DLA Energy Americas is responsible for ten Federal Emergency Management Agency regions, seventeen major pipeline distribution systems, 64 intermediate Defense Fuel Support Points and 431 bases and a multimode distribution network. The region consists of North, Central and South Americas, the Caribbean Island states and territories, and Bermuda.
No. 12-8604.

#### Guy v. Morrow, Warden, et al.

C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
# DLA Aviation Commander visits San Diego, promotes Commander

/ Published Sept. 5, 2019

Defense Logistics Agency Aviation Commander Air Force Brig. Gen. David Sanford made his first trip to DLA Aviation at San Diego, California Sept. 3. Sanford assumed command of DLA Aviation in July.

While there, Sanford met with his Navy customers on Naval Air Station North Island, California, as well as DLA Aviation at San Diego employees. Sanford also got a tour of Fleet Readiness Center Southwest’s depot production lines as well as met with FRCSW Commanding Officer Navy Capt. Anthony Jaramillo.

While in San Diego, Sanford also officiated over the promotion ceremony for DLA Aviation at San Diego Commander Navy Capt. Ernan Obellos. He was promoted to the rank of captain during a ceremony where he was joined by his two sons, who are also Navy officers, as well as his wife and daughter.
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03

- 0 3

- 00 013

- CR NO. 03

- 03

- 00014

- CR

Jack Garner Wright , Appellant

v. The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY, 27TH

JUDICIAL DISTRICT NOS. 53,201 & 53,200 , HONORABLE MARTHA J. TRUDO , JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant Jack Garner Wright pleaded guilty to sexual assault of a child and indecency with a child by contact. Tex. Pen. Code Ann. ' ' 21.11, 22.011 (West 2003). In both cases, the district court adjudged him guilty and sentenced him to eighteen years in prison.

Appellant = s court

- appointed attorney filed a brief concluding that the appeals are frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be

advanced. See also Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75 (1988); High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Currie v. State , 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); Jackson v. State , 485 S.W.2d 553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972); Gainous v. State , 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). A copy of2

counsel = s brief was delivered to appellant, and appe llant was advised of his right to examine the appellate record and to file a pro se brief. No pro se brief has been filed.

We have reviewed the record and counsel = s brief and agree that the appeals are frivolous

and w ithout merit. We find nothing in the record of either cause that might arguably support the appeal.

Counsel = s motion to withdraw is granted. The judgments of conviction are affirmed.

W. Kenneth Law, Chief Justice Before Chief Justice Law, Justices B. A. Smith and Puryear

Affirmed Filed: April 10, 2003

Do Not Publish
#### Kodenkandeth v. Kodenkandeth

07/19/2016

108 WAL (2016)

Denied

Pa.Super., 141 A.3d 600
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                 6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                       1,936,497
<SECURITIES>                                10,393,168
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,000,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            14,329,665
<PP&E>                                         487,684
<DEPRECIATION>                                  71,772
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              16,017,485
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,100,813
<BONDS>                                      3,000,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        52,376
<OTHER-SE>                                   7,864,296
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                16,017,485
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            11,911,170
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               10,394,036
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,517,134
<INCOME-TAX>                                   673,086
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   844,048
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .16
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### Kiongo W. Maina, Respondent, v Rapid Funding NYC LLC et al., Appellants, et al., Defendant.

[49 NYS3d 290]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (O. Peter Sherwood, J.), entered August 12, 2015, in favor of defendants Rapid Funding NYC, LLC and Signature Bank, to the extent it brings up for review an order, same court and Justice, entered or about April 11, 2014, which denied defendants’ request for attorneys’ fees, and certain other fees, unanimously modified, on the law, to remand for a determination of reasonable attorneys’ fees, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

While defendants demonstrated their entitlement to attorneys’ fees as a matter of law, they offered no evidence from which the reasonableness of the amount they claim could be assessed. Thus, we remand the matter for a determination of defendants’ reasonable attorneys’ fees *(see Industrial Equip. Credit Corp. v Green,*92 AD2d 838 [1st Dept 1983], *affd*62 NY2d 903 [1984]; *Friedman v Miale,*69 AD3d 789, 791-792 [2d Dept 2010]).

We have considered defendants’ remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

Concur — Sweeny, J.P., Renwick, Maz-zarelli and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.
#### Com. v. Park 21

03/24/2016

895 MAL (2015)

21

. Justice WECHT did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.

Denied

Pa.Super., 134 A.3d 110
# L_2011142EN.01006301.xml

| 28.5.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 142/63 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.5.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 142/63

---

POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE DECISION EU BAM RAFAH/1/2011

of 27 May 2011

extending the mandate of the Head of Mission of the European Union Border Assistance Mission at the Rafah Crossing Point

(2011/316/CFSP)

THE POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular the third paragraph of Article 38 thereof,

Having regard to Council Joint Action 2005/889/CFSP of 25 November 2005 on establishing a European Union Border Assistance Mission for the Rafah Crossing Point (EU BAM Rafah) (1), and in particular Article 10(1) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Pursuant to Article 10(1) of Joint Action 2005/889/CFSP, the Council authorised the Political and Security Committee (PSC), in accordance with Article 38 of the Treaty, to take the relevant decisions for the purpose of political control and strategic direction of the EU BAM Rafah mission, including the decision to appoint a Head of Mission. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Pursuant to Article 10(1) of Joint Action 2005/889/CFSP, the Council authorised the Political and Security Committee (PSC), in accordance with Article 38 of the Treaty, to take the relevant decisions for the purpose of political control and strategic direction of the EU BAM Rafah mission, including the decision to appoint a Head of Mission.

| (2) | On 11 November 2008, upon a proposal by the Secretary General/High Representative, the PSC appointed by Decision EU BAM Rafah/1/2008 (2) Mr Alain FAUGERAS as Head of Mission of EU BAM Rafah. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

On 11 November 2008, upon a proposal by the Secretary General/High Representative, the PSC appointed by Decision EU BAM Rafah/1/2008 (2) Mr Alain FAUGERAS as Head of Mission of EU BAM Rafah.

| (3) | On 13 May 2011, the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy proposed to the PSC that it extend the mandate of Mr Alain FAUGERAS as Head of Mission of EU BAM Rafah until 31 December 2011, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

On 13 May 2011, the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy proposed to the PSC that it extend the mandate of Mr Alain FAUGERAS as Head of Mission of EU BAM Rafah until 31 December 2011,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The mandate of Mr Alain FAUGERAS as Head of Mission of the European Union Border Assistance Mission for the Rafah Crossing Point is hereby extended from 25 May 2011 until 31 December 2011.

Article 2

This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.

Done at Brussels, 27 May 2011.

For the Political and Security Committee

The Chairperson

O. SKOOG

---

(1)  
  OJ L 327, 14.12.2005, p. 28.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 306, 15.11.2008, p. 99.

2

---
*April 19, 2017*

2017-Ohio-1427.]

2016-1583.

#### State ex rel. McCuller v. Eppinger.

In Habeas Corpus. Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

O’Connor, C.J., and O’Donnell, Kennedy, French, O’Neill, Fischer, and DeWine, JJ., concur.
#### Harold Hirsch, Appellant, v Stellar Management et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants.

[50 NYS3d 68]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Geoffrey D. Wright, J.), entered on or about September 22, 2016, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, upon the motion of defendants-respondents (defendants), dismissed the second amended complaint as to defendants Aore Holdings, Moshe Azogui, and Yan Ouaknine, dismissed plaintiffs fraud claim for failure to comply with CPLR 3016, and struck the allegations of fraud from the second amended complaint, unanimously modified, on the law, to reinstate the second cause of action as against Aore Holdings, Moshe Azogui, and Yan Ouaknine, and reinstate the factual allegations that are relevant to the second cause of action, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

The motion court correctly determined that plaintiff failed to plead a fraud claim with the requisite specificity *(see*CPLR 3016 [b]). Although plaintiff alleged that defendants committed a material misrepresentation of fact, plaintiff failed to allege specific details to demonstrate that he justifiably relied on the misrepresentation to his detriment *(see Cusack v Greenberg Traurig, LLP,*109 AD3d 747, 748 [1st Dept 2013]). Nevertheless, to the extent that defendants’ alleged wrongdoing is relevant to plaintiff’s second cause of action, which survived defendants’ motion to dismiss, the allegations should not be struck from the second amended complaint *(see New York City Health & Hosps. Corp. v St. Barnabas Community Health Plan,*22 AD3d 391 [1st Dept 2005]). Further, because the second amended complaint alleges that Aore Holdings, Moshe Azogui, and Yan Ouaknine submitted false information in obtaining the work permits that give rise to plaintiff’s surviving claim, the court erred in dismissing the second cause of action as to these defendants.

The parties confirm that after the issuance of the motion court’s order, the court clarified that plaintiff’s second cause of action could encompass injuries caused by toxins including, but *589not limited to, asbestos. Accordingly, plaintiff’s argument on this point is moot, as he has already received the relief he is requesting (see *e.g. Masterwear Corp. v Bernard,*3 AD3d 305, 306 [1st Dept 2004]).

We have considered plaintiff’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

Concur — Sweeny, J.P., Richter, Moskow-itz, Feinman and Gische, JJ.