alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 208 (Monday, October 29, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 61204]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-5323]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration


Notice of Intent To Rule on Request To Release Airport Property 
at Seattle Tacoma International Airport, Seattle, WA

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:  Notice of intent to release airport property.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to rule and invite public comment on the 
release of land at Seattle Tacoma International Airport under the 
provisions of Section 125 of the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment 
Reform Act for the 21st Century (AIR 21).

DATES: Comments must be received on or before November 28, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Comments on this application may be mailed or delivered to 
the FAA at the following address: Federal Aviation Administration, 1601 
Lind Ave., SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356.
    In addition, one copy of any comments submitted to the FAA must be 
mailed or delivered to Mr. Mark Reis, Airport Director, Port of 
Seattle, P.O. Box 68727, Seattle, Washington 98409-7322.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Paul Johnson, Project Manager, 
Federal Aviation Administration, Northwest Mountain Region, Airports 
Division, Seattle Airports District Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., 
Suite 250, Renton, Washington 98057-3356.
    This request to release property may be reviewed in person at this 
same location, by appointment.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA invites public comment on the 
request to release property at the Seattle Tacoma International 
Airport, under the provisions of the AIR 21.
    The Port of Seattle requests the release of 24.6 acres of airport 
property to the Washington Department of Transportation (WSDOT) needed 
for their SR 509 project alignment in exchange for 24.08 acres of WSDOT 
property. WSDOT has identified these properties as essential for the 
alignment of the planned SR 509 extension and desires to enter into an 
exchange agreement for land it owns near the airport.
    Any person may inspect the request in person at the FAA office 
listed above under: FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
    In addition, any person may, upon request, inspect the application, 
notice and other documents germane to the application, in person at the 
Port of Seattle, Acquisition and Relocation Office, 19639 28th Ave., 
S., Bldg. E, SeaTac, Washington 98118-16715.

    Issued in Renton, Washington on October 9, 2007.
Paul Johnson,
Compliance Specialist, Seattle Airports District Office.
[FR Doc. 07-5323 Filed 10-26-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

September 8, 2014

No. 04-14-00297-CV

IN THE MATTER OF F.A.S.,

From the 289th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2012-JUV-01811

The Honorable Carmen Kelsey, Judge Presiding

ORDER

Appellant’s brief was originally due to be filed in this appeal on July 2, 2014. On July 9, 

2014, this court notified appellant that the brief was late. On July 21, 2014, this court granted 

appellant’s motion requesting an extension of time to file his brief, extending the deadline to 

September 2, 2014. This court’s order stated no further extensions of time would be granted 

absent extenuating circumstances. The brief has not been filed. It is therefore ORDERED that 

appellant’s brief be filed in this court no later September 18, 2014. If appellant’s brief is not 

filed by September 18, 2014, this appeal will be abated to the trial court for an abandonment 

hearing, and the trial court will be requested to consider whether sanctions should be imposed 

against appellant’s appointed attorney.

_________________________________

Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

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

court on this 8th day of September, 2014.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

BOBBY MELLARD,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D19-26

[May 30, 2019]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Edward H. Merrigan, 

Jr., Judge; L.T. Case No. 08-12247 CF10B.

Bobby Mellard, Crawfordville, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

WARNER, TAYLOR and CIKLIN, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
#### TAYLOR v. HAYES

No. 70 PC

No. 25 (Spring Term)

Case below: 48 NC App 738

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 allowed 2 December 1980.
##### 



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
  (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 as of the dates and for the
periods expressed in the Report.
   /s/ John B. SchulzeJohn B. SchulzeChairman of the Board, President andChief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 37 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 1 of 6
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 37 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 2 of 6
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 37 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 3 of 6
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 37 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 4 of 6
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 37 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 5 of 6
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 37 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 6 of 6
#### Benjamin Johnson, plaintiff in error, *vs.*John J. Little *et al.,*defendants in error.

(By two judges.) — Where A sues “as guardian of the minors” of B, on a contract originating before June, 1865, he is entitled to amend his declaration by alleging that the note sued on is the property of C, one of the minors, and that she is still a minor, and if he prove the allegation, it will excuse the filing of the affidavit required by the second section of the Relief Act of 1870. 5th March, 1872.

Amendments. Relief Act of 1870. Minors. Before Judge Johnson. Harris Superior Court. October Term, 1871.

The facts are in the opinion.

E. H. Worrill; J. M. Mobley, for plaintiff in error.

B. H. Bigham, for defendant.

*107Montgomery, Judge.

This was a suit brought by the plaintiff in error “asguardian of the minors of Winston Billingslea,” on a note payable to himself individually, or bearer, but whch he offered to prove belonged to his ward, Ophelia Billingslea. The note was in renewal of a debt contracted before June, 1865. Plaintiff moved to amend his declaration by alleging the above facts. The Court refused the amendment, and refused to permit the proof offered to be made, and on motion of defendant, dismissed the suit for non-payment of taxes.

The amendment should have been allowed. In an action by or against an individual, the pleadings may be amended by inserting his representative character: Code, section 3137. So, where several plaintiffs sue jointly, the declaration may be amended by striking out the name of one or more plaintiffs: Code, section 3430. Here the record shows that plaintiff sued “as guardian of the minors of Winston Billingslea.” Had he sued in his individual character he might have inserted the name of his ward, and sued as guardian for her. If all the minors had sued by next friend, the declaration might have been amended by striking out the name of one or more of the plaintiffs.

Under the first section quoted, he could certainly strike out the words “ as guardian,” etc.; that being done he then, under the same section, might amend by inserting “asguardian for Ophelia Billingslea.” The amendment made, and the allegation proved, the case falls under the 14th section of the Relief Act of 1870, and no affidavit of payment of taxes was necessary.

Judgment reversed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1999             MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998             DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                               0                       0
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0                       0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0                       0
<PP&E>                                               0                       0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0                       0
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                             0                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0                       0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0                       0
<SALES>                                              0                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 1,623                   1,582
<CGS>                                                0                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0                       0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,623                   1,582
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0                       0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0                       0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0                       0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0                       0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0                       0
        

</TABLE>
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13**  **- 8053** 

KEVIN S. JACKSON , Petitioner

– Appellant ,
v. CIRCUIT COURT FOR HOWARD COUNTY , Respondent

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Baltimore
. Richard D. Bennett , District Judge. ( 1:13

- cv - 03219

- RDB )

Submitted : April 24, 2014 Decided: April 28, 2014

Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD , and FLOYD , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
. Kevin S. Jackson, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Kevin Jackson appeals the district court’s order denying his request for mandamus relief
. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Jackson v. Cir. Ct. of Howard Cnty. , No. 1:13

- cv - 03219

- RDB (D. Md. Nov. 4 , 2013)
. We dispense with oral argument because the f acts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2099 

To redesignate the Sullys Hill National Game Preserve in the State of 

North Dakota as the White Horse Hill National Game Preserve. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 11, 2019 

Mr. CRAMER (for himself and Mr. HOEVEN) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and 

Public Works 

A BILL 

To redesignate the Sullys Hill National Game Preserve in 

the State of North Dakota as the White Horse Hill 

National Game Preserve. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘White Horse Hill Na5 tional Game Preserve Designation Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. DESIGNATION OF WHITE HORSE HILL NATIONAL 

7 GAME PRESERVE, NORTH DAKOTA. 

8 (a) REDESIGNATION.—The first section of the Act of 

9 March 3, 1931 (46 Stat. 1509, chapter 439; 16 U.S.C. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•S 2099 IS

1 674a), is amended by striking ‘‘Sullys Hill National Game 

2 Preserve’’ and inserting ‘‘White Horse Hill National Game 

3 Preserve’’. 

4 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 2 of the 

5 Act of March 3, 1931 (46 Stat. 1509, chapter 439; 16 

6 U.S.C. 674b), is amended by striking ‘‘Sullys Hill Na7 tional Game Preserve’’ and inserting ‘‘White Horse Hill 

8 National Game Preserve’’. 

9 (c) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg10 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

11 States to the Sullys Hill National Game Preserve shall be 

12 considered to be a reference to the ‘‘White Horse Hill Na13 tional Game Preserve’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 192 (Thursday, October 4, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 56780]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-4919]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


Center for Scientific Review; Amended Notice of Meeting

    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Cellular 
and Molecular Immunology--B Study Section, October 11, 2007, 8:30 a.m. 
to October 12, 2007, 5 p.m., Residence Inn Bethesda, 7335 Wisconsin 
Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814 which was published in the Federal Register 
on September 21, 2007, 72 FR 54051-54054.
    The meeting will be held at the Hilton Hotel/Silver Spring, 8727 
Colesville Road, Silver Spring, MD 20910. The meeting dates and times 
remain the same. The meeting is closed to the public.

    Dated: September 27, 2007.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 07-4919 Filed 10-3-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
#### Frederick C. Lang v. John P. Hand.

1. Real Estate *Broker—When Entitled to His*Commissions.—A real estate agent earns and becomes entitled to his commission when he procures a purchaser who is ready, willing and able to buy and to complete the purchase, and with whom the seller has entered into a valid contract.

Memorandum.—Assumpsit for commissions. Appeal 'from the Superior Court of Cook County; the Hon. James Goggin, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1894, and affirmed.

Opinion filed December 30, 1894.

Schintz & Ives, attorneys for appellant.

Goldzier *&*Eodgers, attorneys for appellee.

Mr. Justice Shepard

delivered the opinion of the Court.

This was a suit to recover commissions for the sale of real estate. The appellee was a duly licensed real estate broker doing business in Chicago, and the appellant was the owner *135of a piece of property which he authorized the appellee to sell for him for the sum of $58,000 net.

The appellee procured a purchaser for the property for the sum of $59,450, which equaled the selling price of $53,000 and two and one-half per cent as commissions added. The addition of the commissions to the authorized net price was agreed to by the contemplated purchaser, and a written contract for the sale and purchase of the property was duly entered into by the purchaser and the appellant by their own proper hands, and $500 earnest money was paid to the appellee by the purchaser.

The purchaser was a man of large means and abundantly able, pecuniarily, to carry out his contract, and he evidenced his readiness and willingness to do so by executing the contract and paying the earnest money.

Whether the contract was ever carried out for reasons existing between the parties to it, and for which the broker was not responsible, cuts no figure so far as either the merits or the law of this case is concerned. The appellee earned and became entitled to his commissions when he procured a purchaser who was ready, willing and able to buy and to complete the purchase, and with whom the seller entered into a valid contract. Sievers v. Griffin, 14 Ill. App. 63; Pratt v. Hotchkiss, 10 Ill. App. 603; Monroe v. Snow, 131 Ill. 126; Goodridge v. Holladay, 18 Ill. App. 363; Parmly v. Head, 33 Ill. App. 134; Smith v. Keeler, 51 Ill. App. 267. The facts in the case that are disputed, and as to which the evidence may be said to be conflicting, were settled by the verdict. Van Vlissingen v. Cox, 44 Ill. App. 247.

There is much stress laid by defendant upon the alleged defectiveness of certain of appellee’s instructions, but upon the whole of the instructions and the evidence in the case we are satisfied that no harm was done to appellant. The right of the case was clearly with the appellee, and we are satisfied that the verdict would have been the same if the criticisms to which the instructions may, perhaps, be subject, had been avoided.

The judgment will therefore be affirmed.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

OLIVIA VICKY RIVAS-DE PEREZ;

EDWARD ALEXANDER PEREZRIVAS,

 Petitioners,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 10-73165

Agency Nos. A098-044-783

A098-044-784

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted April 22, 2015** 

Before: GOODWIN, BYBEE, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges. 

Olivia Vicky Rivas-De Perez and Edward Alexander Perez-Rivas, natives

and citizens of El Salvador, petition for review of the Board of Immigration

Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”)

FILED

APR 27 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

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

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
decision denying their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and

protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction

under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual

findings. Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny in

part and grant in part the petition for review, and we remand.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because

petitioners failed to establish it is more likely than not that they would be tortured

by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to El

Salvador. See id. at 1073.

In denying petitioners’ asylum and withholding of removal claims, the

agency found petitioners failed to establish past persecution or a fear of future

persecution on account of a protected ground. When the IJ and BIA issued their

decisions in this case they did not have the benefit of this court’s decisions in

Henriquez-Rivas v. Holder, 707 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir. 2013) (en banc), Cordoba v.

Holder, 726 F.3d 1106 (9th Cir. 2013), and Pirir-Boc v. Holder, 750 F.3d 1077

(9th Cir. 2014), or the BIA’s decisions in Matter of M-E-V-G-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 227

(BIA 2014), and Matter of W-G-R-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 208 (BIA 2014). Thus, we

remand petitioners’ asylum and withholding of removal claims to determine the

impact, if any, of these decisions. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-18 (2002)

2 10-73165
(per curiam). In light of this remand, we do not reach petitioners’ remaining

challenges to the agency’s denial of asylum and withholding of removal.

The parties shall bear their own costs for this petition for review.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; GRANTED in part;

REMANDED.

3 10-73165
**Exhibit
31.1**





**CERTIFICATIONS**





I, Rudolf
W. Gunnerman, Chairman of the Board of Directors and Chief Executive Officer,
certify that:





1. I have
reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB;





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 small business issuer as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;





4. The
small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) 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 small business issuer and
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 small business issuer, 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 small business issuer'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 small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business
issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's fourth fiscal
quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting; and





5. The
small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based
on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to
the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of the small
business issuer's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):





(a) All
significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
adversely affect the small business issuer'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 small business issuer's internal control over
financial reporting.





**
    **
    *****Dated: March 29,
      2005*
    
    */s/ Rudolf W.
      Gunnerman*By:
      Rudolf W. GunnermanIts: Chairman of the Board
      andChief Executive Officer









---