alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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.                  

###### Department of Transportation

###### Federal Aviation Administration 

# AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

# ACTION:

Notice of RTCA/Industry Air Traffic Management Advisory Committee. 

# SUMMARY:

The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a meeting of the RTCA Government/Industry Air Traffic Management Advisory Committee.

# DATES:

The meeting will be held February 25, 9 a.m. to 12 p.m.

# ADDRESSES:

The meeting will be held at the Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Ave., SW., Bessie Coleman Conference Room (2nd Floor) Washington, DC 20591.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        (1) RTCA Secretariat, 1828 L Street, NW., Suite 805, Washington, DC 20036; telephone (202) 833-9339; fax (202) 833-9434; Web site                         *http://www.rtca.org.*

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., Appendix 2), notice is hereby given for the Air Traffic Management Advisory Committee meeting. 

# Note:

Non-Government attendees to the meeting must go through security and be escorted to and from the conference room.

Issued in Washington, DC, on January 21, 2005.

Natalie Ogletree,

FAA General Engineer, RTCA Advisory Committee.

[FR Doc. 05-2317 Filed 2-7-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
Case 1:07-cv-03388-MGC Document 4 Filed 05/17/2007 Page 1 of 1
#### JOHNSON v. DUNLAP

No. 10 P 82.

Case below: 53 N.C. App. 312.

Petition by defendants for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 27 January 1982.
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-0776-17T3

SUJIN YOO,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

NAIYA J. PATEL and

BOROUGH OF FAIRVIEW,

Defendants-Respondents.

______________________________

Submitted September 24, 2018 – Decided

Before Judges Messano and Fasciale.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law 

Division, Bergen County, Docket No. L-0764-16.

Jae Lee Law, PC, attorneys for appellant (Shane A. 

Sullivan, of counsel and on the briefs).

Keenan & Doris, LLC, attorneys for respondents 

(Joanne M. Venino, of counsel and on the brief).

PER CURIAM

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the 

internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.

December 18, 2018
2

A-0776-17T3

The matter having been amicably adjusted and the parties having 

stipulated to the dismissal of this appeal, it is hereby ordered that the appeal is 

dismissed with prejudice and without costs.

Dismissed.
The State of TexasAppellee



# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

October 23, 2014

N o. 04

- 14

- 00383

- CR

Sean LEBO

,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 14 , Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 413956 Honorable Bill C. White, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

The reporter’s record in this appeal was due September 15, 2014, but it was not filed. This court notified Kimberly LoBello by letter that she is the court reporter responsible for timely filing the reporter’s record, and the record had not been filed. Our letter directed LoBello

to file the record by October 22, 2014. On October 22, LoBello filed a notification of late record, requestin g an extension of time until November 3, 2014, to file the record.

We grant the motion, and order Kimberly LoBello to file the record by November 3,

2014 . LoBello is advised that the court will not grant a further extension of time unless she (1) establi shes there are extraordinary circumstances that prevent her from timely filing the record, (2) advises the court of what efforts have been expended to prepare the record and the status of completion, and (3) provides the court reasonable assurance the reco rd will be completed and filed by the requested extended deadline.

_________________________________ Luz Elena D. Cha pa, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 23rd day of October, 2014

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hot tle

Clerk of Court
#### STATE v. MOORE

No. 60 PC.

Case below: 9 N.C. App. 699.

Petition for writ of *certiorari*to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied and appeal dismissed *ex mero motu*20 January 1971.
Case 1:07-cv-03413-LAP Document 24 Filed 12/19/2007 Page 1 of 1
Case 1:07-cr-00326-RWS Document 2 Filed 04/23/2007 Page 1 of 1
#### NEAL v. BOOTH

No. 56 PC.

Case below: 22 N.C. App. 415.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals allowed 3 December 1974.
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



Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350), Brian M. NeSmith, Chief Executive Officer of Blue Coat Systems, Inc. (the Company), and Kevin S. Royal, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:



| | 1. | The Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended April 30, 2006, to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the Report),
fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date: March 28, 2007



|                                                       |  |                                                                 
|------------------------------------------------------ |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ BRIAN M. NESMITH                                   |  | /s/ KEVIN S. ROYAL                                              
|Brian M. NeSmith President and Chief Executive Officer |  | Kevin S. Royal Senior Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer
|                                                      



This certification is
not deemed to be filed for purposes of section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, or otherwise subject to the liability of that section. This certification is not deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the
Securities Act of 1933 or Securities Exchange Act of 1934, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-09-00367-CV

IN RE CAROLINE DURHAM AND BARRY DURHAM

Original Proceeding

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The amended petition for writ of mandamus is denied, and this Court’s 

November 6, 2009 stay order is lifted.

REX D. DAVIS

Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Reyna, and

Justice Davis

Petition denied

Opinion delivered and filed November 10, 2009

[OT06]
Document

Exhibit 10.17


Denis Drygin, Ph.D. Yearly Discretionary Base Salary Increase


The Board of Directors (the “Board”) of Regulus Therapeutics Inc., upon the recommendation of the Compensation Committee of the Board, approved the increase of Dr. Drygin’s annual base salary to $340,725, effective January 1, 2022.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-28-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-29-2000
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,878<FN>
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      4,282
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 7,387
<PP&E>                                           2,485
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,340
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   8,556
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,084
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           172
<OTHER-SE>                                       2,448
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     8,556
<SALES>                                         29,471
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                29,471
<CGS>                                           26,726
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    2,781
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 341
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (377)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      (60)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (317)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (317)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.07)
<FN>
<F1>Receivables net of allowances
</FN>


</TABLE>
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

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title
18 of the United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of Kreisler Manufacturing Corporation (the Company) does hereby certify with respect to the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-QSB for the period ended
September 30, 2007 (the Report) that:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                        |  |                        
|----------------------- |  | -----------------------
|Date: November 14, 2007 |  | /s/ Michael D. Stern   
|                        |  | Michael D. Stern       
|                        |  | Chief Executive Officer
|                        | 
|Date: November 14, 2007 |  | /s/ Edward A. Stern    
|                        |  | Edward A. Stern        
|                        |  | Chief Financial Officer

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
Case 1:07-cv-03208-LAP     Document 5      Filed 03/18/2008     Page 1 of 1
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

**____________** No. 23
- 40177 Summary Calendar

**____________ United States of America,**  Plaintiff

— Appellee **,** versus **Kelvin Montgomery,** Defendant

— Appellant **.**

**______________________________** Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 6:22
- CR
- 5 - 1

**_____________________ _________**  Before **Willett, Duncan,** and **Ramirez,** Circuit Judges **. Per Curiam**  **:** ***** The attorney appointed to represent Kelvin Montgomery has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Montgomery has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and th e relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We

**_____________________** * This opinion is not designated for publication. See **5th Cir .**  **R .**  47.5. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED January 22, 2024

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 23-40177 Document: 00517039388 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/22/2024No. 23
- 40177

2 concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is **GRANTED** , counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the appeal is **DISMISSED** . See **5th Cir. R.** 42.2 . Case: 23-40177 Document: 00517039388 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/22/2024
#### William Lowry v. Charles Lynch, by Next Friend.

1. *Negligence—A Question of*Fact.—Oare and negligence are questions of fact for a jury.

2. *Same—Adults and*Infants.—Acts which are not negligence toward an adult may be gross negligence toward a child.

Memorandum.—Action for personal injuries. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. Edmond W. Burke, Judge, presiding. Submitted at the October term, 1894.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed January 10, 1895.

Samuel J. Lumbard, attorney for appellant.

Daniel Y. Samuels, attorney for appellee.

Me. Justice Gaby

delivered the opinion op the Court.

According to the version of the appellant, the driver of his milk wagon came out northward from an alley opening into Delaware Place, a street running east and west, between State street and Dearborn avenue, and because a wagon was *324going east across the entrance to the alley, the driver of the milk wagon turned west on the south side of Delaware Place, and having proceeded on a slow trot about thirty feet, the appellee, who was playing with other boys, jumped backward between the wheels of the wagon, and the hind wheel ran over him.

The version of the appellee is that he was playing with other boys on the south side of Delaware Place, and having one foot on the curb stone and the other on the street, the. wagon came along *“*pretty swift ” and struck him. The appellee was then between nine and ten years of age. His leg was broken by the wagon, and he has recovered $300.

Whether the driver was negligent was a question for the jury, and upon it their verdict is final.

The' appellant has cause to be satisfied with the result, that he has escaped a larger verdict.

Driving on the wrong side of the street is a circumstance that weighs against him. Lind v. Beck, 31 Ill. App. 430; Homan v. Fleming, 51 Ill. App. 572.

The most substantial complaint of the appellant is of an instruction “ that what might not be negligence toward an adult, may be gross negligence as respects a child.” Abstractly that is true. The case of Lynch v. Nurdin, 1 Ad. & El. N. S. 29, often cited by the Supreme Court, and always with approval, is founded upon that doctrine.

It is illustrated in Phil. & Read. R. R. v. Spearen, 47 Pa. St. 300, which is approved in Chi. W. D. Ry. v. Ryan, 131 Ill. 474.

And with reference to a boy of twelve years the Supreme Court in terms say: “ Ordinary neglect as to a person of full age and capacity, might be gross neglect as to a child.” Kerr v. Forgue, 54 Ill. 482.

Yet it is not prudent to ask such instructions. Care and negligence are questions of fact for a jury, and there is always some hazard in attempting to guide the jury in their solution, and usually the party injured has little need of aid from the court.

What the Supreme Court call the *“*pernicious practice ” *325of marking instructions “ plaintiff’s ” or “ defendant’s,” was still held not fatal, even where the mark was for the wrong party. Aneals v. People, 134 Ill. 401.

The judgment is affirmed.
**Exhibit 31.2   
I, Raymond L. Carr, certify that:  
1.
I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending March 31, 2006 of Kentucky Investors, Inc.;  
2.
Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;  
3.
Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;  
4.
The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant, and we have:   
(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared,   
(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation, and   
(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal controls over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal controls over financial reporting; and  
5.
The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal controls over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors:   
(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize, and report financial information; and   
(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls over financial reporting.  
Date: May 12, 2006
By: /s/ Raymond L. Carr           
Raymond L. Carr 
Chief Financial Officer -- Vice President

 **
Case 1:07-cv-03475-LAP Document 7-8 Filed 07/23/2007 Page 1 of 4
Case 1:07-cv-03475-LAP Document 7-8 Filed 07/23/2007 Page 2 of 4
Case 1:07-cv-03475-LAP Document 7-8 Filed 07/23/2007 Page 3 of 4
Case 1:07-cv-03475-LAP Document 7-8 Filed 07/23/2007 Page 4 of 4
#### STATE v. DARDEN

No. 711P82.

Case below: 59 N.C. App. 738.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 28 January 1983.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>         UT
<MULTIPLIER>                                     1,000


<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                      527,098
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                     26,537
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                         196,103
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                       147,483
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 897,221
<COMMON>                                        20,744
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                       61,814
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                            203,081
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                 285,562
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            1,913
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                           204,345
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                                   0
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                 152,700
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                        0
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                     0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                 252,701
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                  897,221
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                      151,434
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                             5,237
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     131,419
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     136,656
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                         14,778
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                                 776
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                  15,554
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         5,973
<NET-INCOME>                                     9,581
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                         24
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                    9,557
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                         6,324
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                        3,784
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                         (53,172)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      .51
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .51

<FN>
Capital-surplus-paid-in is net of $24,017 of treasury stock.






                                 Page 21


</TABLE>
#### STATE v. REEKES

No. 689P82.

Case below: 59 N.C. App. 672.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 28 December 1982.
Exhibit 23.2


CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (No. 333-198576) and Form S-8 (No. 333-183465) of iStar Inc. of our report dated February 19, 2016 relating to the consolidated financial statements of Marina Palms, LLC and Subsidiaries, appearing in Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of iStar Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2015.





/s/ Gerson, Preston, Robinson, Klein, Lips & Eisenberg, P.A.








Miami, Florida


March 9, 2016
Case 1:07-cv-03384-JCF Document 12-3 Filed 07/09/2007 Page 1 of 1