alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
01/08/2010 10:48 FAX 2024935142 FAA * DMS 12001/002 

'1$^ jrna t 

'^tC 2 9 2009 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTAJIOIJ^ 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS '^ ^'' ^ G D O C K ^^ T 

WASmNGTON, DC 

Served: December 18, 2009 

In the Mailer of: 

HIGGINSVILLE AVIONICS LAB, LLC, 

Respondent. 

FAA Invesiigation No. 2007CE050034 

FAA Docket No. CP09CE0002 

DMS No. 2009-0845 

Judge: Richard C. Goodwin 

NOTICE OK SETTLEMENT and 

WITHDRAWAL OF COMPLAINT 

COMES NOW the Federal Aviation Administration (Complainant), by counsel, and 

stales that the parlies have seiiled the matter between thcni on December 8, 2009, obviaiing the 

need for a hearing presently set for February 24-25, 2010, in Kansas City, Missouri. In keeping 

with the terms of ihc agreemenl, the Agency hereby withdraws the Complaint filed in thi.s- action 

onSeptemher 16, 2009. 

WHEREFORE, the Complainant, by counsel, respectfully requests thai an Order be 

issued di-smissing this action. 

Dated this 18"** day of December 2009 

Respectfully .submitted, 

A.L. Haizlip 

RegionalyCounsel 

By; ' 

fk G. Camacho 

S/nior Enforcement Attorney 

federal Aviation Administration 

901 Locust Street, Room 506 

Kansas City, MO 64106 

(816) 329-3765 - Fax (816) 329-3771 

Counsel for Complainant 
01/08/2010 10:48 FAX 2024935142 FAA * DMS 21002/002 

HIGGINSVILLE AVIONICS LAB. LLC, FAA Docket No. CP09CF0002, DMS No. 2009-

0845 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

1 hereby certify thai 1 have this date sent the Agency's Withdrawal of Complaint, via 

methods listed, to below named addressees: 

Jason Dickstein, Esq. 

2233 Wisconsin Avenue, NW 

Suite 503 

Washington, DC 20007 

(J copy via regular mail; I copy via facsimile to202-628-89-»8) 

rhe Honorable Richard C. Goodwin 

Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

US Departmeni of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avcntie, S.F. 

East Building Ground Floor, Room El 2-.320 

Washington, DC 20590 

(J copy via reguhir mail; 1 copy via facsimile to 202 366-7536) 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention; Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building, Room 2014 

(Original & 1 copy via regular mail; 1 copy via facsimile to 202-493-5142) 

Dated this 18"' day of December 2009 

lark Camacho 

Senior Enforcement Attorney
Thadius HUGHES, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

WD 80547

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

ORDER FILED: May 29, 2018

Keith O'Connor, Kansas City, MO, Attorney for Appellant.

Joshua D. Hawley, Attorney General, and Richard A. Starnes, Assistant Attorney General, Jefferson City, MO, Attorneys for Respondent.

Before Division IV: Mark D. Pfeiffer, Chief Judge, and Gary D. Witt and Anthony Rex Gabbert, Judges

**Order**

Per Curiam:

Mr. Thadius Hughes appeals the Judgment of the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri, denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. Mr. Hughes alleges that his conviction for two counts of first-degree assault and two counts of armed criminal action should be vacated because his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, we have instead provided a memorandum of law to the parties. The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5459 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5459

 To authorize funds for the United States Marshals Service's Fugitive 
                        Safe Surrender Program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 23, 2006

Mrs. Jones of Ohio introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
                     the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To authorize funds for the United States Marshals Service's Fugitive 
                        Safe Surrender Program.

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

SECTION 1. FINDINGS.

    Congress finds the following:
            (1) Fugitive Safe Surrender is a program of the United 
        States Marshals Service, in partnership with public, private, 
        and faith-based organizations, which temporarily transforms a 
        church into a courthouse, so fugitives can turn themselves in, 
        in an atmosphere where they feel more comfortable to do so, and 
        have nonviolent cases adjudicated immediately.
            (2) In the 4-day pilot program in Cleveland, Ohio, over 800 
        fugitives turned themselves in. By contrast, a successful 
        Fugitive Task Force sweep, conducted for 3 days after Fugitive 
        Safe Surrender, resulted in the arrest of 65 individuals.
            (3) Fugitive Safe Surrender is safer for defendants, law 
        enforcement, and innocent bystanders than needing to conduct a 
        sweep.
            (4) Based upon the success of the pilot program, Fugitive 
        Safe Surrender should be expanded to other cities throughout 
        the United States.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION.

    (a) In General.--The United States Marshals Service shall 
establish, direct, and coordinate a program (to be known as the 
``Fugitive Safe Surrender Program''), under which the United States 
Marshals Service shall apprehend Federal, State, and local fugitives in 
a safe, secure, and peaceful manner to be coordinated with law 
enforcement and community leaders in designated cities throughout the 
United States.
    (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized to be 
appropriated to the United States Marshals Service to carry out this 
section--
            (1) $3,000,000 for fiscal year 2007;
            (2) $5,000,000 for fiscal year 2008; and
            (3) $8,000,000 for fiscal year 2009.
    (c) Other Existing Applicable Law.--Nothing in this section shall 
be construed to limit any existing authority under any other provision 
of Federal or State law for law enforcement agencies to locate or 
apprehend fugitives through task forces or any other means.
                                 <all>
```
109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5516

AN ACT

To allow for the renegotiation of the payment schedule of 

contracts between the Secretary of the Interior and the 

Redwood Valley County Water District, 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,
2

•HR 5516 EH

1 SECTION 1. RENEGOTIATION OF PAYMENT SCHEDULE. 

2 Section 15 of Public Law 100–516 (102 Stat. 2573) 

3 is amended as follows: 

4 (1) By amending paragraph (2) of subsection 

5 (a) to read as follows: 

6 ‘‘(2) If, as of January 1, 2006, the Secretary 

7 of the Interior and the Redwood Valley County 

8 Water District have not renegotiated the schedule of 

9 payment, the District may enter into such additional 

10 non-Federal obligations as are necessary to finance 

11 procurement of dedicated water rights and improve12 ments necessary to store and convey those rights to 

13 provide for the District’s water needs. The renegoti14 ated schedule of payments shall commence when 

15 such additional obligations have been financially sat16 isfied by the District. The date of the initial pay17 ment owed by the District to the United States shall 

18 be regarded as the start of the District’s repayment 

19 period and the time upon which any interest shall 

20 first be computed and assessed under section 5 of 

21 the Small Reclamation Projects Act of 1956 (43 

22 U.S.C. 422a et seq.).’’. 
3

•HR 5516 EH

1 (2) By striking subsection (c). 

Passed the House of Representatives September 27, 

2006. 

Attest:

Clerk. 
109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5516

AN ACT

To allow for the renegotiation of the payment 

Water District, and for other purposes.the Interior and the Redwood Valley County schedule of contracts between the Secretary of
**Exhibit 23**

 

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

 

We consent to the incorporationby reference in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-46629) of ourreport dated March 23, 2006, with respect to the consolidated financial statementsand schedule of Granite Broadcasting Corporation included in this Annual Report(Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2005.

 

 
|                | Ernst &  Young LLP |   |
|---------------------|------------------------|--------|
| New York,  New York |
| March 30,  2006     |

 

----
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Securities and Exchange Commission

Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities and Exchange Commission will hold a Closed Meeting on Thursday, March 19, 2009 at 2 p.m. 

Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the Closed Meeting. Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be present. 

The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(5), (7), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR 200.402(a)(5), (7), 9(ii) and (10), permit consideration of the scheduled matters at the Closed Meeting. 

Commissioner Walter, as duty officer, voted to consider the items listed for the Closed Meeting in closed session. 

The subject matter of the Closed Meeting scheduled for Thursday, March 19, 2009 will be:

Institution and settlement of injunctive actions; 

Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings of an enforcement nature; 

Other matters relating to enforcement proceedings.

At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in the scheduling of meeting items. 

For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed, please contact: 

The Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400. 

March 12, 2009. 

Elizabeth M. Murphy, 

Secretary. 

 [FR Doc. E9-5791 Filed 3-17-09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Steven MARTIN, Appellant.

No. ED 105709

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION TWO.

Filed: August 14, 2018

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT: Marc D. Goldstein, 7700 Forsyth Blvd., Suite 1100, St. Louis, MO 63105.

ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT: Joshua D. Hawley, Attorney General, Dora A. Fichter Asst. Attorney General, P. O. Box 899, Jefferson City, MO 65102.

Before Philip M. Hess, P.J. and Robert G. Dowd, Jr. and Mary K. Hoff, JJ.

**ORDER**

PER CURIAM.

Steven Martin appeals from the judgment entered on his conviction after a jury trial for burglary in the second degree. The evidence was sufficient and there was no other prejudicial error at trial. We affirm.

An opinion would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).
Joshua EPPERSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. ED 106054

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION ONE.

Filed: June 12, 2018

Samuel E. Buffaloe, 1000 West Nifong, Building 7, Suite 100, Columbia, MO 65203, for Appellant.

Joshua D. Hawley, Attorney General, Shaun J. Mackelprang, Asst. Attorney General, P. O. Box 899, Jefferson City, MO 65102-0899, for Respondent.

Before Robert G. Dowd, Jr., P.J. and Sherri B. Sullivan and Kurt S. Odenwald, JJ.

**ORDER**

PER CURIAM.

*922Joshua Epperson appeals the judgment of the motion court denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. We find the motion court's findings of fact and conclusions of law are not clearly erroneous and affirm.

An opinion would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6877
STEVEN EDWARD SNIPES, Petitioner - Appellant, versus THEODIS BECK, Secretary, North Carolina Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. Frank W. Bullock, Jr., District Judge. (CA-01-983-1) Submitted: November 18, 2002 Decided: December 13, 2002 Before WILKINS, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Steven Edward Snipes, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Steven Edward Snipes seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). We have reviewed the record and conclude for the reasons stated by the district court that Snipes has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. See Snipes v. Beck , No. CA-01-983-1 (M.D.N.C. filed May 13, 2002; entered May 14, 2002). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (2000). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
p. 1 

# OAR Box 1828 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 68 ) ll-K-(B)-5 6 Docket Number: 

# A-83-2 7

Printed 11/12/200811:12:50AM Sheet 68of 325P. 2 

# n P 

# ty ' l
- x \ a fyS y 

## /•• A 

## y y II-K-(B)-5 6
CONFIRM REGULATOR Y CASE S FO

R SEVENT H ROUND AND SUMMARIZ E TH E CHANGE S THA T HAV E BEEN MAD E T O TH E MODEL . Lette r fro

m E . Medine , EE

A t o R . Short , EPA:SASD . Septembe r 15 , 1980 . THI S INFORMATION

CA N B E FOUND I

N DOCKE T A-79-02 , ITE

M II-K-(B)-5 6
ERROR: undefined

OFFENDING COMMAND: eexec STACK: / quit -dictionary- -mark-
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA F OURTH D ISTRICT

CHRISTOPHER VIGLIOTTI , Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA , Appellee

.

No. 4D 19

- 1130

[ November 25, 2020 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County ; Barry M. Cohen , Judge; L.T. Case No. 50

- 2002

- CF

004059

- AMB

.
Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Erika Follmer, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Marc B. Hernandez, Assist ant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.
Affirmed.

G ROSS , C IKLIN and C ONNER , JJ., concur

.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6674

VAN PRINCE WELCH, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry C. Morgan, Jr., District Judge. (CA-00-668-2) Submitted: August 31, 2001 Decided: October 23, 2001 Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Van Prince Welch, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Thomas Judge, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Van Prince Welch seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Welch’s motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Welch v. Angelone , No. CA-00- 668-2 (E.D. Va. Apr. 16, 2001). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Dear Designated State Agency:

This letter concerns the Rehabilitation Services Administration’s (RSA) grant funding to your 

state's Independent Living Services for Older Individuals Who Are Blind (IL-OIB) program for 

fiscal years (FY) 2014-2016. The IL-OIB program is authorized under Section 752 of the 

Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (Act), to (1) provide independent living services to older 

individuals who are blind (enumerated in section 752(e)(1) of the Act); (2) conduct activities that 

will improve or expand services for such individuals; and (3) conduct activities to help improve 

public understanding of the problems of such individuals. 

RSA is authorized to make formula grants under the IL-OIB program to states under Section 

752(c) of the Act. The amount of each state’s formula grant is determined by the application of 

the section 752(j), which provides for a minimum allotment tot each state and territory under 

section 752(j)(2)(A) and (B) or the application of a population formula under section 752(j)(3), 

whichever is greater. The allotment available to your state each year may vary according to the 

federal appropriation level and relative population changes. 

In order for a state to receive its full share of its formula grant, it must provide matching funds to 

the program. Section 752(f)(1) and (2) of the Act stipulates that the state shall provide directly 

or through donations (in cash or in kind, fairly evaluated) from public or private entities, nonfederal contributions toward the costs of the program in an amount that is not less than $1 for 

each $9 of federal funds provided in the grant. Section 752(g) permits a state to expend a grant 

through grants to public and nonprofit agencies or organizations.

Sections 752(a)(2) and (i)(1) provide that, in order for the Commissioner to make a grant to a 

state for the IL-OIB program, the state must submit an application to the Commissioner and must 

agree that the grant will be administered solely by the agency described in section 

101(a)(2)(A)(i) of the Act – the state agency authorized to provide vocational rehabilitation 

services to individuals who are blind.

To submit your application for the IL-OIB funds, you must sign and complete the documents

provided with this letter:

1. IL-OIB Assurances required under section 752(i)(2);

2. Form Letter used to transmit the application to RSA and

3. Annual certification regarding lobbying, as required of all U.S. 

Department of Education grantees.
Page 2 – Designated State Agency

These documents constitute your application and request for federal assistance under the IL-OIB 

program. Please submit the original signed documents to the RSA Commissioner, attention 

Veronica Hogan, by November 30, 201X.

Please do not hesitate to contact the Chief of the Independent Living Unit, Timothy Beatty at 

202-245-6156 if you have any questions. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

Janet L. LaBreck

Commissioner

cc: OIB Program Managers

Enclosures
NORTH CAROLINA STATE CONFERENCE OF the NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR the ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE v. Tim MOORE, in his official capacity, Philip Berger, in his official capacity

No. 261P18-2

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 11, 2019

Kimberley Hunter, David L. Neal, Irving Joyner, Daryl V. Atkinson, Leah J. Kang, Attorneys at Law, for NC NAACP.

D. Martin Warf, H. Huffstetler, III, Attorneys at Law, for Moore, Tim, et al.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Plaintiff on the 1st of May 2019 in this matter for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 prior to a determination by the North Carolina Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 11th of June 2019."
Mark R. SINGER, Appellant, v. The BAR PLAN MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent.

No. ED 106071

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION THREE.

Filed: May 22, 2018

FOR APPELLANT: Timothy W. Monsees, 4717 Grand Avenue, Suite 820, Kansas City, MO 64112.

FOR RESPONDENT: Brent W. Baldwin, Michael B. Flynn, 12747 Olive Blvd., Suite 280, St. Louis, MO 63141.

Before: Gary M. Gaertner, Jr., P.J., Robert M. Clayton III, J., and Angela T. Quigless, J.

***ORDER***

PER CURIAM.

*606Mark Singer appeals the trial court's summary judgment in favor of The Bar Plan Mutual Insurance Company on Singer's suit for equitable garnishment and bad faith. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal, and no error of law appears. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been provided with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The decision is affirmed. Mo. R. Civ. P. 84.16(b) (2018).
STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Jemel D. COLEMAN, Appellant.

No. ED 105558

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION TWO.

Filed: August 14, 2018

FOR APPELLANT: Gwenda R. Robinson, Missouri Public Defender's Office, 1010 Market Street, Suite 1100, St. Louis, Missouri 63101.

FOR RESPONDENT: Gregory L. Barnes, Assistant Attorney General, PO Box 899, Jefferson City, Missouri 65102.

Before Philip M. Hess, P.J., Robert G. Dowd, Jr., J. and Mary K. Hoff, J.

***ORDER***

PER CURIAM

Jemel Coleman ("Appellant") appeals the judgment of the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis convicting him of seven felonies. In point one, Appellant argues the trial court erred by submitting jury instructions that provided for accomplice liability because there was insufficient evidence to support an inference that Appellant was an accomplice to another's crime. In point two, Appellant argues the trial court erred by declining to dismiss two armed criminal action charges predicated on unlawful use of a firearm charges.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the trial court did not err in submitting jury instructions or by declining to dismiss the armed criminal action charges predicated on unlawful use of the firearms charges. An extended opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision. Rule 30.25(b).