alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 36 (Friday, February 23, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8248-8249]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-807]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration


Notice of Opportunity for Public Comment on Surplus Property 
Release at Douglas Municipal Airport, Douglas, GA

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Under the provisions of Title 49, U.S.C. Section 47153(c), 
notice is being given that the FAA is considering a request from the 
City of Douglas to waive the requirement that approximately .76 acres 
of surplus property, located at the Douglas Municipal Airport, be used 
for aeronautical purposes.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 26, 2007.

[[Page 8249]]


ADDRESSES: Comments on this notice may be mailed or delivered in 
triplicate to the FAA at the following address: Atlanta Airports 
District Office, Attn: Chuck Garrison, Program Manager, 1701 Columbia 
Ave., Suite 2-260, Atlanta, GA 30337-2747.
    In addition, one copy of any comments submitted to the FAA must be 
mailed or delivered to Tony L. Paul, Mayor, City of Douglas at the 
following address: City of Douglas, Post Office Box 470, Douglas, GA 
31534.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chuck Garrison, Program Manager, 
Atlanta Airports District Office, 1701 Columbia Ave., Suite 2-260, 
Atlanta, GA 30337-2747, (404) 305-7145. the application may be reviewed 
in person at this same location.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA is reviewing a request by the City 
of Douglas to release approximately .76 acres of surplus property at 
the Douglas Municipal Airport. The property consists of one parcel 
located adjacent to and west of U.S. Highway <greek-i>441 right of way, 
and approximately 1250 feet south of Georgia State Road <greek-i>353 
right of way. This property is currently shown on the approved Airport 
Layout Plan as aeronautical use land; however the property is currently 
not being used for aeronautical purposes and the proposed use of this 
property is compatible with airport operations. The City will 
ultimately sell the property to the Douglas Coffee County Industrial 
Authority who will participate in putting a purchase package together 
to sell both the land owned by the city and the structure owned by an 
individual, with proceeds of the sale providing funding for future 
airport development.
    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 request, notice and other 
documents germane to the request in person at the Douglas Municipal 
Airport.

    Dated: Issued in Atlanta, Georgia on February 5, 2007.
Scott L. Seritt,
Manager, Atlanta Airports District Office, Southern Region.
[FR Doc. 07-807 Filed 2-22-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
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;
  fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
  controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the Company and have:
  be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the Company, 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;
  reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;
  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 evaluations; and
  occurred during the period covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonable likely to materially affect, the Company’s internal control over financial reporting; and
  internal control over financial reporting, to the Company’s auditors and the audit committee of the Company’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
  financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the Company’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and


Frank Abbott Chief Financial Officer Financial Director
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 5:11-cv-217-RS-CJK

FOX MANOR APARTMENTS, LTD.,

Defendant.

_________________________________________/

ORDER

Before me is the Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 23) because the Parties have reached 

a settlement. Pursuant to N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 16.2(D), IT IS ORDERED:

1. This case is dismissed from the active docket of the court.

2. In the event that the settlement between these parties is not consummated, the 

Court reserves jurisdiction, upon motion filed by any party within 60 days of 

the date of this Order, to amend or vacate and set aside this Order and 

reinstate the case. 

3. The clerk is directed to close the file for administrative purposes, and upon the 

expiration of 60 days without activity, the clerk is directed to close the case in 

its entirety for all purposes.

ORDERED on December 8, 2011.

/s/ Richard Smoak 

RICHARD SMOAK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:11-cv-00217-RS-CJK Document 24 Filed 12/08/11 Page 1 of 1
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

RONNIE DYSON, 

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 1:11cv134-SPM/GRJ

PRE-PAID SERVICES, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

______________________________/

ORDER

THIS CAUSE comes before the court on the magistrate judge’s report and

recommendation dated December 20, 2011 (doc. 7). Plaintiff has been afforded

an opportunity to file objections pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section

636(b)(1). No objections have been filed. Having considered the report and

recommendation, I have determined that the report and recommendation should

be adopted.

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED as follows:

1. The magistrate judge’s report and recommendation (doc. 7) is

ADOPTED and incorporated by reference in this order.

2. This case is dismissed without prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to

Case 1:11-cv-00134-SPM-GRJ Document 8 Filed 01/19/12 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

prosecute and failure to comply with an order of the Court.

DONE AND ORDERED this 19th day of January, 2012.

s/ Stephan P. Mickle 

Stephan P. Mickle

Senior United States District Judge

 CASE NO. 1:11cv134-SPM/GRJ

Case 1:11-cv-00134-SPM-GRJ Document 8 Filed 01/19/12 Page 2 of 2
No. 07-16-00349-CR

Bernardo Luis Avila

 Appellant

v.

The State of Texas

 Appellee

§

§

§

§

From the 287th District Court

 of Bailey County

August 1, 2017

Opinion Per Curiam

J U D G M E N T

Pursuant to the opinion of the Court dated August 1, 2017, it is ordered,

adjudged and decreed that the judgment of the trial court be affirmed.

Inasmuch as this is an appeal in forma pauperis, no costs beyond those that

have been paid are adjudged.

It is further ordered that this decision be certified below for observance.

o O o

FILE COPY
Page 1 of 1

 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

WELLS FARGO BANK NA, 

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 1:11cv127-MP-GRJ

BBMJ LLC, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

This matter is before the court on the plaintiff and defendants Brooking and KB 51's

Joint Motion for an Order Requiring the Parties to Attend Mediation Within Sixty (60) Days

(doc. 91) and Joint Motion for Telephonic Conference or Expedited Hearing (doc. 92). 

Defendants Johnson and Brooks, oppose the motions, while defendants Mohr and BBMJ

take no position. The first mediation, held November 29, 2011, ended in impasse.

Nevertheless, the court agrees that a second mediation conference may assist in the just

and speedy resolution of this matter.

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows:

1. The joint motion for an order requiring the parties to attend mediation within

sixty (60) days (doc. 91) is GRANTED.

2. This case is hereby referred to Magistrate Judge Gary R. Jones to conduct

mediation on or before September 14, 2012.

3. The parties joint motion for telephonic conference or expedited hearing (doc.

92) is DENIED.

DONE and ORDERED this 23rd day of July, 2012.

 s/ M. Casey Rodgers 

M. CASEY RODGERS

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:11-cv-00127-MP-GRJ Document 99 Filed 07/23/12 Page 1 of 1
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 Commerce

###### National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

          - 50 CFR Parts 223 and 224
          - RIN 0648-XF03

# AGENCY:

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

# ACTION:

90-day petition finding; request for information and comments; correction.

# SUMMARY:

                        This document corrects the fax number in the                         **ADDRESSES**                         section of a proposed rule published in the                         **Federal Register**                         of March 5, 2008.                     

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Marta Nammack at 301-713-1401.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

## Correction

                    In proposed rule FR Doc. E8-4231, beginning on page 11849 in the issue of March 5, 2008, make the following correction, in the Preamble.  On page 11849, column two, line 8 of the                     **ADDRESSES**                     section, replace “978-281-9394” with “301-713-0376”.                 

Dated:  March 6, 2008.

John Oliver,

Deputy Assistant Administrator for Operations, National Marine Fisheries Service.

[FR Doc. 08-1000 Filed 3-6-08; 2:54 pm]

BILLING CODE 3510-22-S
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

BILLY GAINOUS,

Plaintiff,

vs. CASE NO. 5:11cv120/RS-GRJ

CITY OF PORT ST. JOE, FLORIDA;

KEN STARNES, Individually; and

JOE NUGENT, in his official capacity

as Sheriff of Gulf County, Florida,

Defendants.

___________________________________________/

ORDER

The relief requested by Defendant City of Port St. Joe’s Unopposed Motion For

Enlargement Of Time (Doc. 9) is granted.

ORDERED on May 27, 2011.

/S/ Richard Smoak 

RICHARD SMOAK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:11-cv-00120-RS-GRJ Document 13 Filed 05/27/11 Page 1 of 1
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 34 (Wednesday, February 21, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 7917]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-778]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration


Notice of Opportunity for Public Comment on Surplus Property 
Release at Augusta--Daniel Field, Augusta, GA

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Under the provisions of Title 49, U.S.C. Section 47153(c), 
notice is being given that the FAA is considering a request from the 
General Aviation Commission and Augusta--Daniel Field to waive the 
requirement that 97,217 square feet of surplus property, located at 
Augusta--Daniel Field, be used for aeronautical purposes.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 23, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Comments on this notice may be mailed or delivered in 
triplicate to the FAA at the following address: Atlanta Airports 
District Office, Attn: Aimee A. McCormick, Program Manager, 1701 
Columbia Ave., Campus Bldg., Suite 2-260, Atlanta, GA 30337-2747.
    In addition, one copy of any comments submitted to the FAA must be 
mailed or delivered to Mr. Buster Boshears, Executive Director, 
Augusta--Daniel Field at the following address: 1775 Highland Ave., 
Augusta, GA 30904.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Aimee McCormick, Program Manager, 
Atlanta Airports District Office, 1701 Columbia Ave., Campus Bldg., 
Suite 2-260, Atlanta, GA 30337-2747, (404) 305-7143. The application 
may be reviewed in person at this same location.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA is reviewing a request by the 
General Aviation Commission and the Augusta--Daniel Field to release 
97,217 square feet of surplus property at Augusta--Daniel Field. The 
proper will be purchased as a permanent easement to construct a 36-inch 
water main. The net proceeds from the sale of this property will be 
used for airport purposes. The proposed use of this property is 
compatible with airport operations.
    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 request, notice and other 
documents germane to the request in person at the General Aviation 
Commission and the Augusta--Daniel Field.

    Issued in Atlanta, Georgia on February 6, 2007.
Scott L. Seritt,
Manager, Atlanta Airports District Office, Southern Region.
[FR Doc. 07-778 Filed 2-20-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
Exhibit 10(i)




                                    AMENDMENT
                                       TO
                              EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

         This  Amendment to Employment  Agreement is entered into effective as
of the 28th day of February, 2003, by and between TXU Corp., a Texas corporation
(the "Company"), and T. L. Baker, an individual ("Employee").

         WHEREAS, the Company and Employee entered into that certain Employment
Agreement dated as of July 1, 2000, as amended pursuant to that certain
Amendment to Employment Agreement dated as of May 11, 2001 ("Employment
Agreement"); and

         WHEREAS, the parties now desire to amend the Employment Agreement to
extend the Term thereof such that the Term shall expire on the third anniversary
of the effective date of this Amendment to Employment Agreement.

         NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual agreements set forth
herein and in the Employment Agreement and for other good and valuable
consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the
parties hereby agree as follows:

         1.       Extension of Term. Section 2 of the Employment Agreement is
                  -----------------
                  hereby amended by replacing the date "June 30, 2004" with the
                  date "the third anniversary of the effective date of the
                  Amendment to Employment Agreement dated in February 2003,"
                  and, as amended, said Section 2 shall be and read in full as
                  follows:

                           "2. Term: This Employment Agreement shall commence as
                               -----
                           of the date first set forth above and, unless
                           terminated earlier pursuant to the provisions hereof,
                           shall expire on the third anniversary of the
                           effective date of the Amendment to Employment
                           Agreement dated in February 2003 ("Term")."

         2.       Continued Effectiveness of Employment Agreement. Except as
                  -----------------------------------------------
                  expressly amended hereby, the Employment Agreement shall
                  remain in full force and effect.

         3.       Governing Law. This Amendment shall be governed by and
                  -------------
                  construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Texas.

         Executed effective as of the 28th day of February, 2003.


TXU CORP.                                            EMPLOYEE:



By:/s/ Erle Nye                                      /s/ T.L. Baker
   ----------------------------                      -----------------------
Erle Nye, Chairman of the Board                      T. L. Baker
and Chief Executive

                                                                    Solo Page
# C_2011123EN.01000102.xml

| 21.4.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 123/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.4.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 123/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5927 — BASF/Cognis)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2011/C 123/02

On 30 November 2010, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32010M5927. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32010M5927. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-15-00384-CR

Raymond ZAPATA,

Appellant

v.

The State of TexasAppellee

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 187th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2014CR6345

Honorable Steve Hilbig, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Delivered and Filed: July 29, 2015

APPEAL DISMISSED

Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, defendant pled guilty to aggravated robbery and was 

sentenced within the terms of the plea bargain. The trial court signed a certification of defendant’s 

right to appeal stating that this “is a plea-bargain case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal.” 

See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2). Rule 25.2(d) provides, “The appeal must be dismissed if a 

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

under these rules.” TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d). Accordingly, on July 16, 2015, this court issued an 

order stating this appeal would be dismissed pursuant to Rule 25.2(d) unless an amended trial court 
04-15-00384-CR

- 2 -

certification that shows defendant has the right of appeal was made part of the appellate record. 

See Daniels v. State, 110 S.W.3d 174 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2003, order); TEX. R. APP. P.

25.2(d); 37.1. 

On July 20, 2015, defendant’s appellate counsel filed a response to our order stating he was 

“compelled to concede that [defendant] has no right of appeal from the underlying criminal case” 

and that this court “may dismiss this appeal for that reason.” In light of the record presented, we 

agree with defendant’s counsel that Rule 25.2(d) requires this court to dismiss this appeal. 

Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Do not publish
#### IVAN EMORY FARRAR v. WILLIAM FARRAR.

(Filed 27 November 1963.)

Automobiles § 47—

Evidence that defendant, while his invitee was attempting to enter the vehicle but before he was actually in, started the vehicle, resulting in injury to the invitee, *held*sufficient to be submitted to the jury on the issue of negligence.

*584Appeal by plaintiff from *Crissman, J.,*February 25, 1963 Civil Session, Guilford Superior Court, Greensboro Division.

Civil action to. recover damages for personal -injury allegedly caused iby -defendant’s -actionable negligence. From a judgment -oif nonsuit (entered -at the c-lo-se of -the evidence, the plaintiff appealed.

*Robert S. Cahoon for plaintiff appellant.*

*Jordan, Wright, Henson & Nichols, and G. Marlin Evans by G. Marlin Evans for defendant appellee.*

Per Curiam.

The parties -are brothers. On February 26, 1960, the plaintiff accepted -the defendant’s invitation to accompany ¡him in the latter’s pickup truck to- the h-ome -of -a near relative. The -defendant entered ¡his tr-uck from rhh-e left, -and while- the plaintiff was -attempting to enter from -the -right, but before he was -actually in -tih-e vehicle, it moved -off, inflicting personal injuries.

The -evidence moist fav-or-able to- the plaintiff .permits the inference that -defendant was careless in moving the vehicle while -the plaintiff wais in a -place of danger; that the movement resulted in- some injury to tlhe plaintiff. Appropriate issues should have -been submitted to the jury. The judgment of nonsuit is

Reversed.