alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 133 (Monday, July 13, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 37589]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-18473]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--Agreement To Establish a Common Computer Tape 
Storage Specification

    Notice is hereby given that, on January 23, 1998, pursuant to 
Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), Agreement to establish a 
common computer tape storage specification has filed written 
notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal 
Trade Commission disclosing (1) the identities of the parties and (2) 
the nature and objectives of the venture. The notifications were filed 
for the purpose of invoking the Act's provisions limiting the recovery 
of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified 
circumstances. Pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act, the identities of 
the parties are Hewlett-Packard Company (``HP''), Palo Alto, CA; 
International Business Machines Corporation (``IBM''), Armonk, NY; 
Seagate Technology, Inc. (``SEAGATE''), Scotts Valley, CA. The nature 
and objectives of the venture are to develop, produce and establish a 
common computer tape storage specification; to combine and integrate 
into this specification complementary intellectual property of each of 
the parties; to develop an appropriate third-party mechanism for 
licensing such intellectual property as part of a license to use the 
specification to all interested parties under terms and conditions 
conducive to establishing an open, widely followed industry 
specification; to promote the development, production and sale of next-
generation computer tape storage products compatible with this 
specification, thereby providing enhanced functionality afforded 
through the use of licensed intellectual property; and, through all of 
the foregoing, to enhance demand for next-generation computer tape 
storage products as alternatives to competing storage technologies.
    The parties will file additional written notifications disclosing 
all changes in membership.
Constance K. Robinson,
Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 98-18473 Filed 7-10-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF THE TITAN CORPORATION'S REPORT ON FORM 10-K FOR THE YEAR
ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1997, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           1,248
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   54,275
<ALLOWANCES>                                       311
<INVENTORY>                                     14,772
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                90,672
<PP&E>                                          43,812
<DEPRECIATION>                                  24,592
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 138,147
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           36,762
<BONDS>                                         37,310
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      3,695
<COMMON>                                           177
<OTHER-SE>                                      52,480
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   138,147
<SALES>                                        170,936
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               171,186
<CGS>                                          132,130
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  132,130
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                25,327
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   107
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,080
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  8,688
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,180
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              5,508
<DISCONTINUED>                                   (343)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     5,165
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.27
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.25
        

</TABLE>
No. 10-5377.

#### Christopher Willard, Petitioner v. New York.

562 U.S. 1125, 131 S. Ct. 852,

178 L. Ed. 2d 583,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9620.

December 13, 2010.

Petition for rehearing denied.

Former decision, 562 U.S. 918, 131 S. Ct. 286, 178 L. Ed. 2d 188, 2010 U.S. LEXIS 7012.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Moises Reyes, Appellant.

[61 NYS3d 896]

An appeal having been taken to this Court by the above-named appellant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Robert Torres, J.), rendered on or about March 23, 2016, said appeal having been argued by counsel for the respective parties, due deliberation having been had thereon, and finding the sentence not excessive, it is unanimously ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same is hereby affirmed.

Concur— Acosta, P.J., Friedman, Webber, Oing and Moulton, JJ.
S15G1621.

#### WYCHE v. GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION.

(785 SE2d 897)

Decided May 9, 2016.

*The Boston Law Firm, Russell M. Boston, Wendy S. Boston,*for appellant.

*Samuel S. Olens, Attorney General, Kathleen M. Pacious, Deputy Attorney General, Loretta L. Pinkston, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Claude M. Sitton, Assistant Attorney General,*for appellee.

Per curiam.

We issued a writ of certiorari to review the decision of the Court of Appeals in this case, see *Georgia Dept. of Transp. v. Wyche,*332 Ga. App. 596 (774 SE2d 169) (2015), and we directed the parties to submit briefs upon the following question:

> Did the Court of Appeals properly find that the plaintiff’s negligence claims against the Department of Transportation fell within the inspections and/or licensing exceptions to the Georgia Tort Claims Act’s waiver of sovereign immunity, see OCGA § 50-21-24 (8) and (9)?

After briefing and oral argument, however, the parties reached a settlement, and the parties now have filed a “motion to voluntarily dismiss appeal.” Construing the motion as a motion to vacate the writ of certiorari and withdraw the petition for a writ of certiorari, we grant the motion, vacate the writ of certiorari in this case, and allow the petition to be withdrawn.

*Writ of certiorari vacated.*

*All the Justices concur.*
Williams , Renee (OST) 1) 0 cict^ ^^T'^ST- if^l-Z^JZ^ 

From: Thomas Weldon [tom@singercastle.com] 

Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2010 7:51 AM 

To: EAS (OST) 

Subject: Cape Air Watertown to Albany 

Hello, 

I would like to express my support for the Essential Air Service proposal by Cape Air for continued service 

to the Watertown International Airport. I am the President of Singer Castle on Dark Island in the 1000 

Islands. My residence is in the Albany area. I have been using Cape Air from Watertown to Albany on 

a regular basis for the past two years. 

Proposals from other airlines do not include continuing service to Albany. This would be a great hardship 

for me as I would be forced to drive four hours in each direction to Singer Castle from my home in Albany 

each week. 

Cape Air's service allows me to commute and spend more time at home with my family. 

I am very hopeful you wil l decide to keep Cape Air and service to Albany at the Watertown International 

Airport 

Regards, 

Tom 

Thomas Weldon 

President 

Dark Island Tours 

tom@singercastle.com 

(315)486-DARK (3275) Mobile
No. 10-7368.

#### Tommie Lee Seymore, Petitioner v. Millicent Warren, Warden.

562 U.S. 1152, 131 S. Ct. 938,

178 L. Ed. 2d 778,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 601.

January 10, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
No. 10-5749.

#### John Willis Richard, Petitioner v. David Rock, Superintendent, Upstate Correctional Facility.

562 U.S. 1125, 131 S. Ct. 853,

178 L. Ed. 2d 584,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9615.

December 13, 2010.

Petition for rehearing denied.

Former decision, 562 U.S. 966, 131 S. Ct. 465, 178 L. Ed. 2d 295, 2010 U.S. LEXIS 8005.
December 17, 2015

MS. CONNIE S. PYATT

VICE PRESIDENT

SKY HELICOPTERS, INC.

2559 SOUTH JUPITER ROAD

GARLAND, TX 75041

Dear Ms. Pyatt:

This is in response to your December 11, 2015 letter posted to the public docket (No. FAA2013-0319) petitioning the Federal Aviation Administration on behalf of SKY Helicopters, 

Inc. (SKY Helicopters) for an exemption from part 121, Appendices I and J of Title 14, Code 

of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). That exemption, if granted, would allow SKY Helicopters 

to cover its safety-sensitive employees under one testing program. That exemption, however, 

expired April 30, 2014. Therefore, the FAA will treat this request as a new petition.

Although the petitioner requested relief from part 121, Appendices I and J, that section has 

since been redesignated to part 120. The redesignation was included in the “Drug and 

Alcohol Testing Program” final rule published in the Federal Register on May 14, 2009 (74 

FR 22649). 

In addition, on July 15, 2013, the FAA published the Combined Drug and Alcohol Testing 

Programs final rule (78 FR 41999) relating to air carrier operators and commuter or ondemand operators that conduct commercial air tour operations. The final rule allows 

operators like you to combine your drug and alcohol testing into one testing program without 

requiring an exemption. A copy of this rule change is enclosed for your information.

Because the relief you seek is now covered under the new rule, we will take no further action 

on your petition.
2

I have also enclosed information about how to notify the FAA of your intent to cover both 

programs. If you have any questions, please contact the FAAs Drug Abatement Division at 

(202) 267-8442 or drugabatement@faa.gov. 

Sincerely,

/s/

Brandon Roberts

Manager, Airmen and 

 Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
3

Project No.: AFS-13-448-E

Project Officer: _______________

ARM-101:KJones:12/16/2015:Doc# 54643

ARM-1/100/104:Program Office AAM-800

MS. CONNIE S. PYATT

VICE PRESIDENT

SKY HELICOPTERS, INC.

2559 SOUTH JUPITER ROAD

GARLAND, TX 75041
No. 11-5251.

#### James Thomas Green, Petitioner v. Texas.

565 U.S. 806, 132 S. Ct. 385,

181 L. Ed. 2d 8,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 6383.

October 3, 2011.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied, and petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas dismissed. See Rule 39.8.
### Proposed Action 1/14/11 a nd Final Action 8/12/11

The TSD as part of this package was used to establish COMAR 26.11.09 and this is not part of

the SIP Revision 15-05.

Therefore the following document is not included.

TECHNICAL SUPPORT DOCUMENT

FOR

COMAR 26.11.01, COMAR 26.11.09 AND COMAR 26.11.31

STANDARDS AND PROCEDURES

FOR

CONTINUOUS OPACITY MONITORS

AND

CONTINUOUS EMISSION MONITORS

PREPARED BY

AIR QUALITY PLANNING PROGRAM

AND

AIR COMPLIANCE PROGRAM

January 10, 2011
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-19-00261-CR

THOMAS ARDARLYN CHANDLER AKA 

THOMAS ARDALYN CHANDLER,

Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

§

§

§

§

§

On Appeal from the 213th District 

Court

of Tarrant County (1477977D)

April 23, 2020

Opinion by Justice Birdwell

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there 

was no error in the trial court’s judgments. It is ordered that the judgments of the 

trial court are affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By /s/ Wade Birdwell

 Justice Wade Birdwell
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
CONSOLIDATED  BALANCE  SHEET AT DECEMBER  31, 1996 AND THE RELATED  CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENTS OF INCOME AND OF CASH FLOWS FOR THE TWELVE MONTHS ENDED  DECEMBER 31,
1996 OF THREE-FIVE  SYSTEMS,  INC. AND ITS  SUBSIDIARIES AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH  FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS.  THIS EXHIBIT SHALL NOT BE
DEEMED  FILED FOR  PURPOSES  OF  SECTION  11 OF THE  SECURITIES  ACT OF 1933 AND
SECTION 18 OF THE SECURITIES  EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, OR OTHERWISE  SUBJECT TO THE
LIABILITY  OF SUCH  SECTIONS,  NOR SHALL IT BE DEEMED A PART OF ANY OTHER FILING
WHICH INCORPORATES THIS REPORT BY REFERENCE,  UNLESS SUCH OTHER FILING EXPRESSLY
INCORPORATES THIS EXHIBIT BY REFERENCE.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1000
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. Dollars
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         12,580
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  7,479
<ALLOWANCES>                                   649
<INVENTORY>                                    4,606
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               31,330
<PP&E>                                         39,207
<DEPRECIATION>                                 8,294
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 62,569
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          9,817
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       78
<OTHER-SE>                                     0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   62,569
<SALES>                                        60,713
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               60,713
<CGS>                                          58,321
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  67,737
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               139
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (6,751)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (2,920)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (3,831)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (3,831)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (0.49)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.49)
        

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 130 (Wednesday, July 8, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 36879]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-18109]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration


Applications for Duty-Free Entry of Scientific Instruments

    Pursuant to Section 6(c) of the Educational, Scientific and 
Cultural Materials Importation Act of 1966 (Pub. L. 89-651; 80 Stat. 
897; 15 CFR part 301), we invite comments on the question of whether 
instruments of equivalent scientific value, for the purposes for which 
the instruments shown below are intended to be used, are being 
manufactured in the United States.
    Comments must comply with 15 CFR 301.5(a)(3) and (4) of the 
regulations and be filed within 20 days with the Statutory Import 
Programs Staff, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C. 20230. 
Applications may be examined between 8:30 A.M. and 5:00 P.M. in Room 
4211, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, 
N.W., Washington, D.C.
    Docket Number: 98-004R. Applicant: University of California at Los 
Angeles, Plasma Physics Laboratory, 405 Hilgard Avenue, P.O. Box 
951547, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1547. Instrument: YAG Pumped Dye Laser. 
Manufacturer: Spectron Laser Systems, United Kingdom. Intended Use: 
Original notice of this resubmitted application was published in the 
Federal Register of February 18, 1998.

    Docket Number: 98-032. Applicant: Massachusetts Institute of 
Technology, Center for Cancer Research, 77 Massachusetts Avenue, 
Cambridge, MA 02139. Instrument: Fish Tank System. Manufacturer: Klaus-
Jurgen Schwarz, Germany. Intended Use: The instrument will be used for 
the study of the early development of the zebrafish embryo in order to 
identify genes that are required for a fish egg to develop normally 
into a perfect living fish embryo and ultimately into an adult fish. It 
is expected that the genes identified will help in understanding what 
goes wrong in human development that can lead to birth defects. 
Application accepted by Commissioner of Customs: June 19, 1998.
Frank W. Creel,
Director, Statutory Import Programs Staff.
[FR Doc. 98-18109 Filed 7-7-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
# K2TIPV51052397

# K2TIPV51052398

# K2TIPV51052400

# K2TIPV51052401

# K2TIPV51052402

# K2TIPV51052404

# K2TIPV51052413

# K2TIPV51052414

# K2TIPV51052416

# K2TIPV51052417

# K2TIPV51052418

# K2TIPV51052421

# K2TIPV51052422

# K2TIPV51052424

# K2TIPV51052425

# K2TIPV51052438

# K2TIPV51122482

# K2TIPV51122489

# K2TIPV51122490

# K2TIPV51192497

# K2TIPV51192500

# K2TIPV51192503

# K2TIPV51192505

# K2TIPV51192506

# K2TIPV51192508

# K2TIPV51192509

# K2TIPV51192514

# K2TIPV51252099

# K2TIPV51262519

# K2TIPV51262524

# K2TIPV51262525

# K2TIPV51262532

# K2TIPV51262533

# K2TIPV51262534

# K2TIPV51262538

# K2TIPV51262539

# K2TIPV51262541

# K2TIPV51262545

# K2TIPV51262546

# K2TIPV51262547

# K2TIPV51402549

# K2TIPV51402550

# K2TIPV51402551

# K2TIPV51402552

# K2TIPV51402553

# K2TIPV51402554

# K2TIPV51402555

# K2TIPV51402556

# K2TIPV51402557

# K2TIPV51402558
No. 10-5328.

#### Chitunda Tillman, Sr., Petitioner v. New Line Cinema, et al.

562 U.S. 1208, 131 S. Ct. 1065,

178 L. Ed. 2d 879,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 1019.

January 24, 2011.

Petition for rehearing denied.

The Chief Justice took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.

Former decision, 562 U.S. 1085, 131 S. Ct. 641, 178 L. Ed. 2d 515, 2010 U.S. LEXIS 9351.
No. 10M65.

#### Mary A. Jasso, et al., Petitioners v. United States Forest Service, et al.

562 U.S. 1197, 131 S. Ct. 1060,

178 L. Ed. 2d 861,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 986.

January 24, 2011.

Motion to direct the Clerk to file a petition for writ of certiorari out of time denied.

Same case below, 376 Fed. Appx. 760.
Time Limits /

Maintenance Checks

Publication No. CH 605 TLMC

MODEL

CL-600-2B16 (CL-605)

A/C EFFECTIVITY

5701 AND SUBS
CHALLENGER* 605

TIME LIMITS / MAINTENANCE CHECKS

Bombardier Aerospace

P. O. Box 6087, Station Centre-ville

Montreal, Quebec, Canada H3C 3G9

http://www.cic.bombardier.com

For more information please contact:

Bombardier Business Aircraft Customer Support

Technical Publications and Information

Distribution

North America 1-866-273-2638

Outside North America 514-855-2751

Fax 514-855-2770

Ordering

To ease the ordering process, the following Document

Identification Number should be used: CH 605 TLMC

User Comment Group 514-855-2373

Email bbad.user.comments@aero.bombardier.com

It is understood that this documentation, comprising technical data and other information in any media

shall not be reproduced or disclosed in whole or in part without Bombardier's written authorization, is

proprietary and confidential to Bombardier and that all rights to patent, copyright, trademark, trade

secret and other intellectual property rights therein belong to Bombardier. Such documentation, 

technical data and other information shall not be modified, translated, reverse assembled, reverse

engineered or de-compiled and shall be used solely to maintain, operate or repair the aircraft.

Copyright © 2006 by Bombardier Inc. All rights reserved.

*Trademark of Bombardier Inc. or its subsidiaries.

Printed in Canada
No. 132,

Original.

#### Alabama, et al., Plaintiffs v. North Carolina.

562 U.S. 1176, 131 S. Ct. 1035,

178 L. Ed. 2d 823,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 718.

January 18, 2011.

Motion of Special Master for allowance of fees and reimbursement of expenses is granted, and the Special Master is awarded a total of $6,312.50 for the period July 1, 2010, through December 31, 2010, to be paid equally by the parties.

Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of this motion.
* 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 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-60041

Conference Calendar

 

EUSTAQUIO VILLATORO-VILLATORO,

Petitioner,

versus

IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE,

Respondent.

- - - - - - - - - -

Petition for Review of an Order

of the Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A 74 159 878

- - - - - - - - - -

October 21, 1997

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and WIENER and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Eustaquio Villatoro-Villatoro petitions for review of the

Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision dismissing his appeal from

the immigration judge’s decision to deny his application for

asylum and for a withholding of deportation. We have reviewed

the record and the briefs and determine that the Board’s decision

is supported by substantial evidence. See Carbajal-Gonzalez v.

INS, 78 F.3d 194, 197 (5th Cir. 1996). The petition for review

is DENIED.
No. 

-2-