alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
SERVED SEPTEMBER 30, 2010 

•-f^RTMENTOF 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION , ! JpRORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS i(r[ OPERATIONS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

im OCT -! A 9: 32 

IN THE MATTER OF 

SAMUEL JOSEPH LATHAM 

FAA DOCKET NO. CP10WP0009 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

FAA No. FAA-2010- 0624' 

AMENDED PROCEDURAL ORDER 

This matter will not be heard prior to January 1, 2011. WHEREFORE, 

Paragraphs #2 and #3 of the Procedural Order are amended as follows^: 

... On or before December 31, 2010, the parties shall conclude all discovery 

including, but not limited to, depositions, document production, responses to 

production requests and/or interrogatories. If the parties cannot resolve a 

discovery dispute they shall submit the dispute to the undersigned for resolution 

in a timely manner... 

...NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVENjh&,pw4ie&.Ml be prepared to present this case 

at a hearing on or after J^mx^fyl, 201lJ,rsu^^^p^ihe availability of courtroom 

facilities... 

'RicharaC. Goodwin 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

Attachment - Service List 

' Materials filed in the FAA Hearing Docket (except for materials filed in security cases) are also available 

for viewing at http://www.regulations, gov. 

^ The Administrator's civil penalty decisions, along with indexes of the decisions, the Rules of Practice, as 

well as other materials relating to civil penalty cases, are available on the internet at: 

http:/Ai'\i'M\faa.gov/ahotH/qfJk'e_org/headc/uarters office.vagcy'pol ad^^^ see 

also: http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Titlel4/14tab_02.tpl. In 

addition, Thomson Reuters/West Publishing publishes Federal Aviation Decisions. Finally, the decisions 

are available through LEXIS (TRANS library) and WestLaw 9FTRAN-FAA database). For additional 

information, see the Web site. 

^ 14 C.F.R. § 13.221 states: "The administrative law judge shall give each party at least 60 days notice of 

the date, time and location of the hearing." 
FAA Docket No. CP10WP0009 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

SERVICE LIST 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building - Suite 2W1000' 

ONE COPY 

Samuel Joseph Latham, Respondent 

33690 Almond St. 

Wildomar, CA 92595 

TEL: 951-392-4897 

Lierre Green, Complainant's Counsel 

Office of the Regional Counsel 

Western-Pacific Region, AWP-7 

Federal Aviation Administration 

P.O. Box 92007 

Los Angeles, CA 90009-2007 

TEL: 310-725-7117 

FAX: 310-725-6816 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

East Building Ground Floor, Room El2-320 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: Attorney-Advisor 202-366-2139 

Legal Assistant 202-366-5121 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

' Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: 

Hearing Docket, Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S. W., Wilbur Wright Building - Room 

2014, Washington, DC 20591, Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.
MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-11-00004-CR

Michael L. JEFFERSON,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 226th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2007CR3774

Honorable Sid L. Harle, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Delivered and Filed: February 16, 2011

DISMISSED

The trial court’s certification in this appeal states that “this criminal case is a plea-bargain 

case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal.” The clerk’s record contains a written plea 

bargain, and the punishment assessed did not exceed the punishment recommended by the 

prosecutor and agreed to by the defendant; therefore, the trial court’s certification accurately 

reflects that the underlying case is a plea-bargain case. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2). Rule 

25.2(d) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure provides, “The appeal must be dismissed if a 
04-11-00004-CR

- 2 -

certification that shows the defendant has a right of appeal has not been made part of the record 

under these rules.” TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d). Because the trial court’s certification does not show 

that the appellant has a right of appeal, rule 25.2(d) requires this court to dismiss this appeal. 

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH
Terron HOOKS, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

WD 81575

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

ORDER FILED: June 28, 2019

S. Kate Webber, Kansas City, MO, Counsel for Appellant.

Mary Moore, Jefferson City, MO, Counsel for Respondent.

Before Division Three: Thomas H. Newton, P.J., Anthony Rex Gabbert, and Edward R. Ardini, JJ.

**ORDER**

Per Curiam:

*866Mr. Terron Hooks appeals a Jackson County Circuit Court judgment overruling a Rule 24.035 motion following an evidentiary hearing. For the reasons stated in the memorandum provided to the parties, we affirm. Rule 84.16(b).
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 32.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Joseph F. Fisher, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of
Platinum Underwriters Holdings, Ltd., hereby certify to the best of my knowledge
and belief that this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)) and that the information contained in this
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of Platinum Underwriters Holdings,
Ltd.


September 21, 2005                      /s/ JOSEPH F. FISHER
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        By: Joseph F. Fisher
                                        Executive Vice President and
                                        Chief Financial Officer


                                      -56-
----

----

I Informācija

Komisija

----

KOPSAVILKUMS PAR KOPIENAS LĒMUMIEM ATTIECĪBĀ UZ ZĀĻU TIRDZNIECĪBAS ATĻAUJĀM NO 15.3.2005 LĪDZ 15.4.2005

(Lēmumi pieņemti atbilstīgi 34. pantam Direktīvā 2001/83/EK (1) vai 38. pantam Direktīvā 2001/82/EK (2))

(2005/C 118/01)

—   Valsts Tirdzniecības atļaujas izsniegšana, uzturēšana vai izmaiņas

----

(1)OJ L 311, 28.11.2001, p. 67

(2)OJ L 311, 28.11.2001, p. 1

----

PIELIKUMS I

ZĀĻU PIEŠĶIRTO NOSAUKUMU, FARMACEITISKO FORMU, ZĀĻU STIPRUMA, LIETOŠANAS VEIDU UN REĢISTRĀCIJAS APLIECĪBAS ĪPAŠNIEKU SARAKSTS DALĪBVALSTĪS

----

II PIELIKUMS

NOSAUKUMU, ZĀĻU FORMU, ZĀĻU STIPRUMA, INJICĒŠANAS VEIDU, DZĪVNIEKU SUGU UN TIRDZNIECĪBAS ATĻAUJU TURĒTĀJU SARAKSTS ATTIECĪGAJĀS DALĪBVALSTĪS, ISLANDĒ UN NORVĒĢIJĀ

----

PIELIKUMS III

ZĀĻU NOSAUKUMU, FARMACEITISKO FORMU, ZĀĻU STIPRUMA, LIETOŠANAS VEIDU, PIETEICĒJA UN REĢISTRĀCIJAS APLIECĪBAS ĪPAŠNIEKU SARAKSTS DALĪBVALSTĪS

----
Alpena County Regional Airport 

June I. 2012 

Mr. Dennis DeVany 

Chief~ Essential Air Service Division 

Office of Aviation Analysis 

Department of Transportation 

I 200 New Jersey Ave. SE 

\V ashington, DC 20590 

Reference: DOT-OST-2009-0300, Alpena Michigan Air Service 

Dear Mr. DeVany: 

1617 Airport Road 

Alpena, Ml 49707 

Phone: 989-354-2907 

FAX: 989-358-9988 

www.alpenaairport.com 

This letter is in response to the proposals received as a result of the fourth and final round 

of RPPs for subsidized air service to Alpena, Michigan. The airport is delighted to have 

received lour proposals and is grateful to the Department for this opportunity. 

In recent months, the County of Alpena has invested nearly $200,000 to discover a 

plausible economic development project that could have a major impact on Alpena and 

surrounding communities. This development, which is gaining momentum at a rapid 

pace. is very dependent upon easy access to the national and international air 

transportation system. 

Alpena County Regional Airport strongly supports SkyWest Airlines' proposal for 

essential air service at our community. Their proposal is comparable to the level of 

service we currently have and is, by far, the best option for our future economic growth. 

I urge the Department to award the subsidy for Alpena's essential air service to Sky West 

Airlines and allow Alpena the opportunity to realize its economic potential, reducing and 

possibly eliminating the need for government subsidies in years to come. 

Sincerely, 

/l---Li f ~- ;:?7eP? o-zfe~hnilli yfcRoberts 

,\irport Manager 

cc: Alpena County Airport Committee
EXHIBIT 32.1





CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)








Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), the undersigned officer of U. S. Natural Nutrients & Minerals, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the "Company"), does hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge, that:





The annual report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2009 (the "Form 10-K") of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.








Date: March 30, 2011





/s/ Paul Hait


Paul Hait


Principal Executive Officer
Modeling scenarios relied on for NPRM for Arizona RH FIP

------------------------------------------------------- AEPCO Apache base •Base case, OFA ctrl1_R•LNB + OFA ctrl2_R•SNCR + LNB ctrl3_S•SCR + LNB "R" refers to revision to apply reductions from LNB, which originally had been assumed to be already in place (no correction needed for ctrl3) "S" refers to inclusion of increased H2SO4 from SCR catalyst oxidation

------------------------------------------------------- APS Cholla base_r•Base case, LNB + SOFA/COFA ctrl1_r•SNCR + LNB ctrl2_r2• "r" refers to revisions to apply % reducctions to post-LNB maximum daily emissions (instead of pre-LNB) "r2" refers to corrected % reduction for SCR, computed from reducing CY2011 average emission factor down to 0.05 lb/MMBtu, and applying the % to the maximum daily emissions

------------------------------------------------------- SRP Coronado base_rs•Base case; unit 1 LNB + OFA, unit 2 SCR .08 ctrl1_rs•unit 1 SNCR + LNB, unit 2 SCR .08 ctrl2_rs•SCR + LNB unit 1, unit 2 SCR .08 ctrl5_rs•SCR + LNB at 0.05 lb/MMBtu NOx, units 1 and 2 All cases except ctrl5_rs have unit 2 at 0.08 lb/MMBtu per consent decree; ctrl5_rs has both units at 0.05 lb/MMBtu. "r" refers to revision to use ADEQ's SO2 BART limits, and also to apply % reductions to post-LNB maximum daily emissions (instead of pre-LNB) "s" refers to inclusion of increased H2SO4 from SCR catalyst oxidation
Extra base_q•Both units LNB + OFA ctrl6_rs•Both units SCR at 90% control rel. LNB+OFA
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

October 22, 2020

No. 04-20-00462-CV

IN RE BERRIDGE MANUFACTURING COMPANY

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

Proceeding 

Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

 Irene Rios, Justice

 Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

On September 18, 2020, relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus. On September 29, 

2020, relator filed an amended petition for writ of mandamus. Relator also filed a motion for 

temporary relief pending final resolution of the petition for writ of mandamus, which this court 

granted on September 18, 2020. This court believes a serious question concerning the 

mandamus relief sought requires further consideration. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(b). The 

respondent and the real party in interest may file a response to the petition in this court no later 

than November 6, 2020. Any such response must conform to Texas Rule of Appellate 

Procedure 52.4.

It is so ORDERED October 22, 2020.

PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO:__________________________

 MICHAEL A. CRUZ, 

 CLERK OF COURT

1

 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2019-CI-07623, styled Jared Martin v. Berridge Manufacturing 

Company, pending in the 408th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas. The Honorable David A. Canales 

signed the order at issue in this original proceeding.

FILE COPY
Exhibit 32.1








CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002











In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended August 31, 2010of Ya Zhu Silk, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the “Company”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Annual Report”), I, Ya Zhu, Chairman, President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





1. The Annual Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





2. The information contained in this Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.





Date: November 29, 2010











/s/ Ya Zhu


Ya Zhu


President, Secretary Treasurer, Principal Executive Officer,


Principal Financial Officer and Director
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 53 (Friday, March 20, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 11980]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-6095]


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

PRESIDIO TRUST


Revised Notice of Public Meeting

AGENCY: The Presidio Trust.

ACTION: Revised notice of public meeting.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with Sec.  103(c)(6) of the Presidio Trust Act, 
16 U.S.C. 460bb, and in accordance with the Presidio Trust's bylaws, 
notice was given that a public meeting of the Presidio Trust Board of 
Directors would be held commencing 6:30 p.m. on Tuesday, April 7, 2009, 
at the Herbst International Exhibition Hall, 385 Moraga Avenue, San 
Francisco, California. The location of the public meeting has changed. 
A public meeting of the Presidio Trust Board of Directors will be held 
commencing 6:30 p.m. on Tuesday, April 7, 2009, at the Palace of Fine 
Arts Theatre, 3301 Lyon Street, San Francisco, California.
    The purposes of this meeting are to provide an Executive Director's 
report, to receive public comment on the revised Draft Presidio Trust 
Management Plan Main Post Update and Draft Supplement to the 
Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, and to receive public 
comment on other matters in accordance with the Trust's Public Outreach 
Policy.
    Time: The meeting will begin at 6:30 p.m. on Tuesday, April 7, 
2009.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Palace of Fine Arts Theatre, 
3301 Lyon Street, San Francisco, California.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karen Cook, General Counsel, the 
Presidio Trust, 34 Graham Street, P.O. Box 29052, San Francisco, 
California 94129-0052, Telephone: 415.561.5300.

    Dated: March 16, 2009.
Karen A. Cook,
General Counsel.
 [FR Doc. E9-6095 Filed 3-19-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-4R-P
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7454

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JOSEPH NATHANIEL BROWN, JR., Defendant - Appellant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge. (CR-89-7, CA-96-456) Submitted: February 11, 1999 Decided: February 24, 1999 Before ERVIN, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joseph Nathaniel Brown, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Stephen Wiley Miller, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Joseph Nathaniel Brown, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255(West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Brown , Nos. CR-89-7; CA-96-456 (E.D. Va. July 21, 1998). We dispense withoral 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
ALABAMA COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

August 30, 2024

CR-2023-0850

Eric Ray Gaylord v. State of Alabama (Appeal from Mobile Circuit Court: CC-22-

2994) 

NOTICE 

You are hereby notified that on August 30, 2024, the following action was taken 

in the above-referenced cause by the Court of Criminal Appeals:

Application for Rehearing Overruled.

D. Scott Mitchell, Clerk
Lee COPHER, Appellant, v. POPEYES LOUISIANA KITCHEN INC., Respondent,

ARC CafeUSA001, LLC and Amber Tillman, Defendants.

No. ED 106268

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION THREE.

Filed: December 11, 2018

Timothy J. Phillips, 305 Main St., St. Louis, MO 63026, for appellant.

Brandan P. Mueller, 190 Carondelet Plaza, Suite 600, St. Louis, MO 63105, Thomas B. Weaver, Cynthia M. Juedemann, 7700 Forsyth Blvd., Suite 1800, St. Luis, MO 63105, for respondent.

Before Sherri B. Sullivan, P.J., Lawrence E. Mooney, J., and James M. Dowd, J.

**ORDER**

PER CURIAM

Lee Copher appeals the circuit court's judgment setting aside a default judgment entered in his favor against Popeyes Louisiana Kitchen, Inc. An opinion would have no precedential value. We have furnished the parties with a memorandum, for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. We affirm. Rule 84.16(b)(5).
Exhibit
      10.44

     

    Shenzhen
      Branch, Bank of China 

    Loan
      Certificate (1)

    Date:
      August 14, 2007

     

    
      	
              Applicant

            	 	
              Shenzhen
                BAK Battery Co., Ltd

            	 	
              ID
                card of the Applicant

            	 	
              73109958-5

            
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	
              Currency

            	 	
              RMB

            	 	
              Amount

            	 	
              30,000,000

            
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	
              Loan
                term

            	 	
              From
                August 14, 2007 to August 13, 2007

            
	 	 	 
	
              Usage

            	 	
              Working
                Capital

            
	 	 	 
	
              Annual
                rate

            	 	
              6.156%

            
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	
              Signature
                of Applicant

            	 	
              Stamp
                of Applicant

            	 	
              Signature
                of Bank of China

            	 	
              Stamp
                of Bank of China

            
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	
              /s/
                Xiangqian Li

            	 	 	 	 	 	 


    

    


    The
      above
      loan has been approved to transfer to your account.

    Lending
      Bank: (Stamp)
WILLIAM WITHERSPOON

,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 17

- 3099

____ _________________________/

Opinion filed October 6, 2017.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County

. Martin A. Fitzpatrick , Judge

.

William Witherspoon, pro se , Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee , for Appellee

.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ROWE, MAKAR, and BILBREY, JJ., CONCUR.
Cite as 2013 Ark. App. 594

ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION II

No. CV-13-137

JACK JONES

APPELLANT

V.

CHARLES McLEMORE and 

ROGER McLEMORE

APPELLEES

Opinion Delivered October 23, 2013

APPEAL FROM THE JEFFERSON 

COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT

[NO. CV-11-130-2]

HONORABLE MARION ANDREW

HUMPHREY, JUDGE

REBRIEFING ORDERED

DAVID M. GLOVER, Judge

Jack Jones appeals from the trial court’s October 24, 2012 grant of summary judgment

in favor of Charles McLemore and Roger McLemore. As his two basic points of appeal,

Jones contends that 1) the trial court erred in granting the motion for summary judgment

regarding his claims of malicious prosecution and conspiracy to commit malicious

prosecution, and 2) the trial court erred in ruling that his claims under the Arkansas Civil

Rights Act were barred by the statute of limitations. We cannot address the merits of this

appeal because the answer to the complaint has not been included in the addendum, and

deposition testimony relied upon by Jones in making his arguments has not been abstracted.

Rule 4-2 of the Rules of the Arkansas Supreme Court and Court of Appeals sets forth

the prescribed contents for briefs filed in our appellate courts. Rule 4-2(a)(8) explains that

an appellant’s brief must contain an addendum and that the addendum must include the
Cite as 2013 Ark. App. 594

pleadings on which the trial court decided each issue. Rule 4-2(a)(5) explains that an

appellant shall create an abstract of the material parts of all the transcripts in the record, and

that transcript information is material if it is essential for the appellate court to confirm its

jurisdiction, to understand the case, and to decide the issues on appeal.

The deficiencies we note above require us to order rebriefing in this case. Therefore,

in accordance with Rule 4-2(b)(3), we order appellant to file a substituted brief that complies

with our rules within fifteen days from the date of entry of this order. While we have noted

specific briefing deficiencies, we encourage counsel to review the contents of Rule 4-2 prior

to submitting his substituted brief to make sure that the substituted brief complies with our

rules and that no additional deficiencies are present. 

Rebriefing ordered.

WYNNE and VAUGHT, JJ., agree. 

Banks Law Firm, by: Charles A. Banks and Robert W. Francis, for appellant.

Dustin McDaniel, Att’y Gen., by: James O. Howe, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.

2