alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 193 (Thursday, October 6, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 58308]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-20047]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2005-21874; Airspace Docket No. 05-ACE-28]


Modification of Class E Airspace; Dodge City Regional Airport, KS

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Direct final rule; request for comments; Correction.

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

SUMMARY: This action corrects an error in the legal description of a 
direct final rule, request for comments that was published in the 
Federal Register on Friday, July 29, 2005 (70 FR 43744).

DATES: This direct final rule is effective on 0901 UTC, October 27, 
2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brenda Mumper, Air Traffic Division, 
Airspace Branch, ACE-520A, DOT Regional Headquarters Building, Federal 
Aviation Administration, 901 Locust, Kansas City, MO 64106; telephone: 
(816) 329-2524.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    Federal Register Document 2005-21874 published on Friday, July 29, 
2005 (70 FR 43744), modified Class E Airspace at Dodge City, KS. The 
latitude and longitude used in the airport reference point was 
incorrect. This action corrects that error.

0
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the errors for 
Class E Airspace, Dodge City, KS as published in the Federal Register 
Friday, July 29, 2005 (70 FR 43744), (FR Doc. 2005-21874), are 
corrected as follows:

PART 71--[CORRECTED]


Sec.  71.1  [Corrected]

    On page 43745, Column 2, change the latitude and longitude of Dodge 
City Regional Airport, KS to (Lat. 37[deg]45'48'' N., long. 
99[deg]57'56'' W.) for ACE KS E2 and ACE KS E5.

    Issued in Kansas City, MO, on August 18, 2005.
Elizabeth S. Wallis,
Acting Area Director, Western Flight Services Operations.
[FR Doc. 05-20047 Filed 10-5-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

HAMID MICHAEL HEJAZI, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

EUGENE MISSION, AKA Eugene Mission, 

Inc., 

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 20-35150 

D.C. No. 6:19-cv-01800-HZ 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Oregon

Marco A. Hernandez, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 14, 2021**

Before: WALLACE, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

Hamid Michael Hejazi appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment 

dismissing his action alleging federal and state law claims for failure to pay the 

filing fee after the district court denied his application to proceed in forma 

pauperis. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

DEC 22 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
 2 

of discretion the denial of leave to proceed in forma pauperis. O’Loughlin v. Doe, 

920 F.2d 614, 616 (9th Cir. 1990). We may affirm on any basis supported by the 

record. Id. at 617. We affirm.

Denial of Hejazi’s request to proceed in forma pauperis was not an abuse of 

discretion because the allegations in Hejazi’s complaint were frivolous and without 

merit. See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989) (“[The] term ‘frivolous,’ 

when applied to a complaint, embraces not only the inarguable legal conclusion, 

but also the fanciful factual allegation.”); O’Loughlin, 920 F.2d at 617 (defining 

“frivolous” as having no arguable basis in fact or law); Tripati v. First Nat’l Bank 

& Tr., 821 F.2d 1368, 1370 (9th Cir. 1987) (“A district court may deny leave to 

proceed in forma pauperis at the outset if it appears from the face of the proposed 

complaint that the action is frivolous or without merit.”).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Hejazi’s motion for 

reconsideration because Hejazi failed to establish any basis for relief. See Sch. 

Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th 

Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review and grounds for reconsideration).

AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          53,489
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  153,807
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                          27,897
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 595,489
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                         44,438
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           214
<OTHER-SE>                                     383,029
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   595,489
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               510,780
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  451,774
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                32,075
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,378
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 24,028
<INCOME-TAX>                                    12,975
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    11,053
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.52
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.50
        


</TABLE>
#### In re Richard Owen TAYLOR.

No. 10-02-344-CV.

Court of Appeals of Texas, Waco.

Jan. 10, 2003.

Richard Owen Taylor, Tennessee Colony, pro se.

Sheryl S. Swanton, Lone Star Legal Aid, Waco, for Appellee/Respondent.

Before Chief Justice DAVIS, Justice VANCE, and Justice GRAY.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Richard Owen Taylor petitions this Court to issue a writ of mandamus against Respondent, the Honorable Joe N. Johnson, former Judge of the 170th District Court of McLennan County. Taylor complains that Judge Johnson refused 1) to set various motions for hearing, and 2) to rule on these motions. However, the Honorable Jim Meyer is the current Judge of the 170th District Court of McLennan County. The Texas Supreme Court has made it clear that “[a] writ of mandamus will not lie against a successor judge in the absence of a refusal by him to grant the relief Relator seeks.” *State v. Olsen,*163 Tex. 449, 360 S.W.2d 402, 403 (1962) (orig. proceeding). There is nothing in the record to indicate that such a request has been made of Judge Meyer. We deny the petition. Tex.R.App. P. 52.8.
Ex10.49 Interim CEO Agt






Exhibit 10.49

TO:        Mr. Michael Gunter, Director
FROM:        E.P. Marinos, Chairman of the Board
DATE:        October 29, 2012
RE:        Interim CEO Assignment


The Board of Directors of Arrhythmia Research Technology, Inc. (the “Company”) has appointed you to serve as Interim CEO effective October 29, 2012.  We anticipate for you to serve as Interim CEO for a period of 90 days.  Should the Board require your services for a longer period, you will be notified.  Upon receipt of this notification, the Executive Committee requests you perform the following duties within three business days:
		
	•
	Acknowledge and Sign this Interim CEO Letter of Understanding


		
	•
	Implement Communication Plan outlined in Section 3E of the CEO Succession Plan as directed by the Executive Committee


		
	•
	Execute All Applicable Transition Documents 




The Executive Committee should be notified when these activities are completed.  During this 90 day period, the following guidelines will be in place:


		
	Title:
	Interim CEO 




		
	Effective Date:
	October 29, 2012




		
	Salary/Benefits:
	Your salary for this initial 90 day period will be $50,000 and benefits as covered by the Employee Manual, except for medical insurance benefits.  Reasonable expenses incurred on behalf of the Company will be reimbursed.  Should we request that you remain Interim CEO for an extended period of time, we will consider and present any appropriate salary and benefit adjustment for your consideration.  We will endeavor to begin this process in 60 days.




		
	Contact:
	You will report to the full Board of Directors through the Executive Committee of the Board of Directors.  




Please confirm your acceptance of this assignment in the space provided below and return it to the Chairman of the Board within three business days. If you have any questions, please contact the Chairman or the Board at (xxx) xxx-xxxx or (xxx) xxx-xxxx. This correspondence does not constitute a direct or implied contract of employment, nor does it imply any commitment to being named CEO.  


I accept this assignment as Interim CEO.


/s/ Michael S. Gunter                                  10/29/2012
Name                                    Date                                





X - 2
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

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

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Aventine Renewable Energy Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”)on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2010 as filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, John Castle,Chief Financial Officer of Aventine Renewable Energy Holdings, Inc.,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge and belief:

 

(1)           The Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)           The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 has been provided to AventineRenewable Energy Holdings, Inc. and will be retained by Aventine RenewableEnergy Holdings, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.

 

 
| Date: November 9,  2010 |   | /s/ John Castle         |
|------------------------------|--------|-------------------------|
|                         |   | John Castle             |
|                         |   | Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
Exhibit 10.1

 

FIRST AMENDMENT TO

AMENDED AND RESTATED

TERMINATION OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES AGREEMENT

 

FIRST AMENDMENT (this “Amendment”), dated as of May 22, 2013, to AMENDED AND RESTATED TERMINATION OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES AGREEMENT (the “Agreement”), dated as of April 30, 2013, between Buffalo Management LLC, a Colorado limited liability company (“Buffalo”), and Prospect Global Resources Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”).

 

Section 4 of the Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced by the following:

 

Section 4               Management Fee.  Buffalo hereby relinquishes one half of the payment described in Section 2(a) of the Services Agreement (the “Royalty”) for the benefit of the Company’s stockholders in connection with the restructuring of the Company’s senior debt to the Karlsson Group.  The other one half of the payment described in Section 2(a) of the Services Agreement shall continue to be paid to Buffalo in perpetuity following the execution and delivery of this Agreement.  The Company agrees to engage a third party reasonably satisfactory to Buffalo to determine the fair market value of the surrendered portion of the royalty in the next 30 days.  Following such determination, Buffalo may choose to receive either, or a combination of, (i) equity securities (that may include common stock, preferred stock or warrants for common stock as mutually agreed) equal in value to the determined fair market value or (ii) preferred stock that is redeemable after the Company commences receiving revenues from the Company’s Holbrook Basin Potash project for the determined fair market value plus accrued interest; provided that no securities shall be issued to Buffalo prior to July 1, 2013 and provided further that in no event will any equity securities or securities convertible into equity securities issued to Buffalo (x) exceed 10% of the Company’s outstanding capital stock or (y) be redeemable for aggregate consideration exceeding 10% of the Company’s equity market capitalization.

 

Except as amended hereby the Agreement remains in full force and effect.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment on the date first written above.

 

	
 
    	
BUFFALO   MANAGEMENT LLC
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
By:
    	
/s/   Chad Brownstein
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
Chad   Brownstein
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
Manager
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
PROSPECT   GLOBAL RESOURCES INC.
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
By:
    	
/s/   Damon G. Barber
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
Damon   G. Barber
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
President   and Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 32.2



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


     I, Kenneth W. Bean, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant  to  Section  906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly
Report  of  Pediatric  Prosthetics, Inc. on Form 10-QSB for the quarterly period
ended  March  31,  2006 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d)  of  the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in
such  Form  10-QSB  fairly  presents  in  all  material  respects  the financial
condition  and  results  of  operations  of  Pediatric  Prosthetics,  Inc.


                                     By:/s/ Kenneth W. Bean
                                     --------------------------
                                     Kenneth W. Bean
                                     Principal Financial Officer

July 5, 2006

<PAGE>
STATE of North Carolina v. Shelley Anne OSBORNE

No. 355PA18

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 30, 2019

Meghan Adelle Jones, Attorney at Law, for Osborne, Shelley Anne.

Alesia Mikhaulauna Balshakova, Teresa M. Postell, Assistant Attorney Generals, Derrick Mertz, Special Deputy Attorney General, Garland N. Yates, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed by State of NC on the 19th of October 2018 for Writ of Supersedeas of the judgment of the Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 30th of January 2019."
Docket 148/696

#### Fidelity Union Trust Company, complainant, *v.*Helen Tezyk and another, defendants.

[Decided January 29th, 1947.]

*317
      *Mr. Joseph A. Fuerstman,*for the complainant.

*Messrs. Lum, Fairlie & Foster (Mr. Charles 8. Barrett),*for the defendant Helen Tezyk.

*Mr. Abram Wales (Mr. Hayden Covington),*for the defendant Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society.

Bigelow, Y. C.

The case presents but a single question, whether United States Savings Bonds, Series E, may be the subject of a gift *causa mortis.*Congress made the issuance of the bonds subject to such terms, “including any restriction on their transfer, as the Secretary of the Treasury may from time to time prescribe.” *31 U. S. C. A.,*§ 757C. The Treasury regulations promulgated under this authority have the force of federal law. *Franklin Washington Trust Co.*v. *Beltram, 133 N. J. Eq. 11.*The regulations state that the bonds are not transferable, may not be hypothecated or pledged and are payable only to the owners named thereon, except in case of disability or death of the owner. Upon the death of the owner, the bond “will be considered as belonging to his estate,” and will be paid to the duly authorized representative of the estate or, on his request, will be reissued in the names of the persons entitled to share in the estate. *Dept. Circular No. 530*§ 315.47.

Paragraph (b) of the cited section provides: “If the estate of the decedent has been settled in a court of competent jurisdiction, the bond will be paid to or reissued in the name of the person entitled thereto as determined by the court. The request for payment or reissue should be made by the person shown to be entitled and supported by duly certified copies of the representative’s final account and the decree of distribution or other pertinent court records * * This paragraph does not aid the claimant under the alleged gift. It relates only to the settlement of decedent’s estate. If the gift were valid, the bond would not be included in the settlement or be subject to the decree of distribution.

*318Savings bonds are sold by the government in denominations as low as $25 to persons of small means and little business experience, persons who are apt to have no safe place for keeping the bonds. One reason — though not the only reason —the bonds were made not transferable, is to protect the owner against fraud and theft. This reason applies with full force to gifts *causa mortis.*Certainly, a man in his last illness is as easily subject to imposition as if he were well, and is less able to defend his possessions against a thief.

There cannot be, in my opinion, a valid gift *causa mortis*of a savings bond. Eor cases from other jurisdictions, see *161 A. L. R. 170.*Also *Owens*v. *Marshall*(Ky.), *S.*W. *Rep. (2d)*, decided last October.
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4825 

To require any amounts remaining in a Member’s Representational Allowance 

at the end of a fiscal year to be deposited in the Treasury and used 

for deficit reduction or to reduce the Federal debt. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 11, 2010 

Mrs. KIRKPATRICK of Arizona introduced the following bill; which was 

referred to the Committee on House Administration 

A BILL 

To require any amounts remaining in a Member’s Representational Allowance at the end of a fiscal year to be 

deposited in the Treasury and used for deficit reduction 

or to reduce the Federal debt. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. REQUIRING AMOUNTS REMAINING IN MEM4 BERS’ REPRESENTATIONAL ALLOWANCES TO 

5 BE USED FOR DEFICIT REDUCTION OR TO RE6 DUCE THE FEDERAL DEBT. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provi8 sion of law, any amounts appropriated for Members’ RepVerDate Nov 24 2008 01:24 Mar 13, 2010 Jkt 089200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H4825.IH H4825

jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4825 IH

1 resentational Allowances for the House of Representatives 

2 for a fiscal year which remain after all payments are made 

3 under such Allowances for the year shall be deposited in 

4 the Treasury and used for deficit reduction, except that 

5 in the case of a fiscal year for which there is no Federal 

6 budget deficit, such amounts shall be used to reduce the 

7 Federal debt (in such manner as the Secretary of the 

8 Treasury considers appropriate). 

9 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—This section shall apply with 

10 respect to fiscal year 2011 and each succeeding fiscal year. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
No. 17,315.

#### Board of County Commissioners of Jefferson County et al *v.*Johnson et al.

(279 P. [2d] 849)

Decided January 31, 1955.

Mr. Mansur Tinsley, for plaintiffs in error.

Messrs. Robinson *&*Curran, Messrs. Quiat, Seeman *&*Quiat, Mr. George Louis Creamer for defendants in error.

*En Banc.*

Per Curiam.

Judgment affirmed without written opinion,
In the MATTER OF: G.T.

No. 420A16

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Filed December 22, 2017

Matthew J. Putnam, for petitioner-appellant Buncombe County Department of Social Services.

Michael N. Tousey, for appellant Guardian ad Litem.

Joyce L. Terres, Assistant Appellate Defender, for respondent-appellee mother.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.
STATE of North Carolina v. Lamont Andre MCKOY

No. COA18-152

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: November 6, 2018

NO ERROR.
STATE EX REL. UTILITIES COMMISSION v. ATTORNEY GENERAL

271A18-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

November 15, 2018

Margaret A. Force, Assistant Attorney General, Matthew W. Sawchak, Solicitor General, Jennifer T. Harrod, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, Teresa L. Townsend, Assistant Attorney General, James W. Doggett, Deputy Solicitor General, for Stein, Josh (Attorney General).

Kiran H. Mehta, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, Christopher G. Browning, Jr., Attorney at Law, Raleigh, Molly Leigh McIntosh, Attorney at Law, for Duke Energy Progress, LLC.

Matthew D. Quinn, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for Sierra Club.

David T. Drooz, Staff Attorney, Lucy E. Edmondson, Staff Attorney, Raleigh, for Public Staff - N.C. Utilities Commission.

James P. West, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for Fayetteville Public Works Commission.

Kyle J. Smith, Attorney at Law, for Department of Defense/Federal Executive Agencies.

*85The following order has been entered on the Joint Motion for Extension of Time to File Briefs filed on the 15th of November 2018 by Appellants:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 15th of November 2018."

Appellants shall have up to and including the 10th day of December 2018 to file and serve his/her briefs with this Court.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 23-0418

STATE OF MONTANA, 

Plaintiff and Appellee, 

v. 

RYAN CLINTON BLOOMER,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including July 12, 2024 within which to prepare, file, and 

serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

June 4 2024

06/04/2024

Case Number: DA 23-0418
STATE v. Frederick Lynn ATWATER

349P18-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 5, 2018

Frederick Lynn Atwater, for Atwater, Frederick Lynn.

Joseph L. Hyde, Assistant Attorney General, Patrick Nadolski, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 12th of October 2018 by Defendant for Petition for Discretionary Review:

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 5th of December 2018."
In the MATTER OF: A.R., D.G., T.G.

No. 121P18

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 14, 2018

Richard Croutharmel, Attorney at Law, for Robeson, Jasmine.

Mercedes O. Chut, Attorney at Law, for Guilford County DSS.

Danielle Caldwell, Attorney at Law, for Smith, Antione.

Matthew Wunsche, Attorney at Law, for GAL.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 19th of April 2018 by Respondent (Mother) in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, 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 14th of August 2018."