alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE Assistant Secretary U.S. Department Washington, DC 20590 of Transportation May 11, 2010 Office of the Secretary ofTransportation

The Honorable Stephanie A. Miner Mayor of Syracuse Syracuse, NY 13202 Dear Mayor Miner: Thank you for your letter supporting the application for antitrust immunity filed byAmerican Airlines and Japan Airlines. I am responding onbehalfof SecretaryLaHood. As you may know, the applicants-members ofthe oneworld Alliance-are seeking antitrust immunity to closely coordinate flights between the United States and Asia. According to the. application, the alliance partners plan to launch ajoint venture for conveyance oftranspacific traffic. The application is administered in a public docket, which ensl1:res that interested parties have the opportunity to comment. The U.S. Department ofTransportation (DOT) will evaluate the application according to rigorous statutory standards, beginning with a review ofthe record to determine ifit is substantially complete. Decisions on the application are made in consultation with the U.S. Department ofJustice's Antitrust Division following a thorough analysis of competitive factors. As this matter is now pending, I hope you understand that I cannot comment on the merits ofthe application. I can assure you, however, that DOT will give full and fair consideration to the application as well as any comments filed in the docket. As is our normal practice, I am placing a copy ofyour letter and this response in Docket DOT-OST-2010-0059 

### as a contact outside the record in this matter. I appreciate your interest in this proceeding.

us Assistant Secretary for AVIation and International Affairs

### S 10-100408-014

OFFICE OF THE MAYOR Stephanie A. 

### Miner, Mayor 

### March 29, 2010 'The Honorable Ray 

### LaHood Secretary. U.S. 

### Department of

### Transportation 12QONew Jersey Ave., SE Washington. D.C. 20590 Attn: Docket 001'·08T-2010"­


### Dear.Seeretary**LaHood~** 

### 1

### am writing to exptessmy 

### !uppc:n:tforthe application for 

### antitrust immunllyand 

### proposedjoint 

### business agreement 

### filed by**AmeriQanAirl~and** 

### JapanAirlines. 

### The propo$edaUiance between thesetwo airlines.will enhance.the benefits oftbeDeparlment's Open Skies policy

­ 

### first by solidifying United States-Japan Open Skies, 

### then by serving as a fomtdation for further 

### UberaUzationacross Asia. 1encourage the DepartmentofTransportation to npprovethisapplication as it·

### would enable 

### tbeseaflianoe airlines to work c1o$ely 

### togetherto 

## deliver highly competitive air transportation services,. Approval ofthe American 

### Aidi!les

..Japan Aitlinesalliance will have a positive 

### impact onecollomic development 

### and .onair

### travel by

### offering customers additl9nal service, scheduling and pricing options, while helping toenSllre eustomerscotltinue to benefitftom having three 

### competitive airalliances tochooseltom. Thank you for 

### your consideration.
g/t cane kg/ha/yr

N 548 47

P2O5 32 3

K2O 70 6

Limestone 4947 423

REFERENCE: Faroni, C.E.; Penatti, C.P.; Donzelli, J.L.; Paes, L.A.D. Simulação CTC para o uso de fertilizantes pela cana-d

2020 assumptions:

Stillage will be spread over up to 80% of the total area.

Filtercake mud, boiler ashes and soot will be used in up to 13.34% of the total area, in rates of 10 t (dry) per hectare.

The area fertilized exclusively with mineral fertilizers will represent 6.66% of the total area.

There will be areas that may be fertilized with stillage and/or filtercake+soot+ashes and/or mineral fertilizers (complementation).

General assumptions for calculation:

Total area (ha) 30000

Harvested area (ha) 27000

Reforming area (ha) 3000 Normal conditions for reforming areas + seed areas

Plant cane area (ha) 2700 It must be the same area of reforming area of the previous year

Ratoon area (ha) 24300 It is the difference between the total harvested area and the plant cane area

Average productivity (t/ha) 95 It must be, at least, 10 t greater than the current average

Harvested cane (t) 2565000

2020 simulation
mútuo

Total area (ha) 30000.00

Harvested area (ha) 27000.00

Reforming area + cana "bis" (ha) 3000.00

Plant cane area (ha) 2700.00

Ratoon area (ha) 24300.00

Average productivity (t/ha) 95.00

Harvested cane (t) 2565000.00

CTC para o uso de fertilizantes pela cana-de-açúcar no ano de 2020. Relatório Técnico de Pesquisa e Desenvolvimento (Planilha Microsoft Exc

With stillage

1620.00

n rates of 10 t (dry) per hectare.

N P2O5

nd/or mineral fertilizers (complementation).

0 0

orming area of the previous year

total harvested area and the plant cane area

 than the current average

With stillage

1822.50

N P2O5

0 0
co de Pesquisa e Desenvolvimento (Planilha Microsoft Excel). CTC – Centro de Tecnologia Canavieira, Piracicaba-SP, 2009. 

2025

Without stillage

405.00

K2O N P2O5 K2O

0 0 0 28350.00

2430

Without stillage

607.50

K2O N P2O5 K2O

0 0.00 0.00 12150.00

0.75

0.25

Plant cane area with filtercake

Plant cane area without filtercake

Ratoon area with filtercake

Ratoon area without filtercake

With filtercake

With filtercake

0.10

0.90
with stillage 0.80

without stillage 0.20

with stillage 1.00

without stillage 0.00

with stillage 0.75

without stillage 0.25

with stillage 0.91

without stillage 0.09

675.00

With stillage

675

N P2O5 K2O

13500 81000.00 0.00

21870.0

With stillage

19901.70

N P2O5 K2O

1194102.00 0.00 0.00

%

Without filtercake

Plant cane

Ratoon

Without filtercake

N

PC

R
WS 0

W/OS 0

WS 20

W/OS 60

WS 0

W/OS 0

WS 60

W/OS 100

N

P2O5

K2O

Limestone

Without stillage

0

N P2O5 K2O

0.00 0.00 0.00

Without stillage

1968.30 1998.6

N P2O5 K2O

196830.00 0.00 137781.00

P2O5

WFC

W/OFC

WFC

W/OFC
WS

0

W/OS0

WS 120

W/OS 120

WS0

W/OS0

WS0

W/OS0

kgg

1404432 1404432000

81000 81000000

178281 178281000

12690000 12690000000

PCR

WFC

W/OFC

WFC

W/OFC
WS

0

W/OS 70

WS0

W/OS 120

WS0

W/OS 20

WS0

W/OS 70

WFC

W/OFC

WFC

W/OFC

K2O

PCR
#### § 683.530 How long are funds used for Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act Pay-for-Performance contract strategies available?

Section 189(g)(2)(D) of WIOA authorizes funds used for WIOA Pay-for-Performance contract strategies to be available until expended. Under WIOA sec. 3(47)(C), funds that are obligated but not expended due to a contractor not achieving the levels of performance specified in a WIOA Pay-for-Performance contract may be reallocated for further activities related to WIOA Pay-for-Performance contract strategies only. The Secretary will issue additional guidance related to the funds availability and reallocation.
### M A N D A T E

TO THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW of SAN PATRICIO COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before our Court of Appeals for the Thirteenth District of Texas, on the 26th day of February, 2015 , the cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your judgment between

Gumaro Rosales & Velma Rosales and All Occupants, Appellant,

v.

Green Tree Servicing LLC. Appellee.

CAUSE NO. 13

- 15

- 00032

- CV (Tr.Ct.No. 10372)

was determined; and therein our said Court made its order in these words:

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT O F APPEALS, having considered this cause on

appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed . The Court orders the appeal

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION in accordance with its opinion . Costs of

the appeal are adjudged against appellant.

We further orde r this decision certified below for observance.

February 26, 2015.



WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court of Appeals for the Thirteenth District of Texas, in this behalf, and in all things have it duly recognized, obeyed and executed.

WITNESS, the Hon. Rogelio Valdez, Chief Justice of our Court of Appeals, with the seal thereof affixed, at the City of Edinburg, Texas this 12th day of May, 2015.

Dorian E. Ramirez, CLERK
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             sep-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                jan-1-1999
<PERIOD-END>                  mar-31-1999
<CASH>                          364,705
<SECURITIES>                          0
<RECEIVABLES>                 9,035,578
<ALLOWANCES>                  1,881,108
<INVENTORY>                     490,341
<CURRENT-ASSETS>             10,866,226
<PP&E>                        4,769,433
<DEPRECIATION>                4,329,823
<TOTAL-ASSETS>               24,757,250
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>         9,396,634
<BONDS>                               0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                 0
<PREFERRED>                           0
<COMMON>                        482,528
<OTHER-SE>                    6,093,473
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY> 24,757,250
<SALES>                               0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>             20,154,240
<CGS>                                 0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                         0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>             16,410,321
<LOSS-PROVISION>                806,119
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              747,914
<INCOME-PRETAX>               1,112,276
<INCOME-TAX>                          0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>           1,112,276
<DISCONTINUED>                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                       0
<CHANGES>                             0
<NET-INCOME>                  1,112,276
<EPS-PRIMARY>                         0
<EPS-DILUTED>                         0
        


</TABLE>
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

DAY ELEV

 838.78

 838.77

 838.76

 838.76

 838.75

 838.74

 838.74

 838.73

 838.72

 838.71

 838.69

 838.68

 838.67

 838.65

 838.64

 838.65

 838.68

 838.66

 838.65

 838.64

 838.62

 838.59

 838.57

 838.56

 838.54

 838.53

 838.49

 838.45

 838.40

 838.39

 838.38

 47.55

 47.54

 47.52

 47.52

 47.51

 47.50

 47.50

 47.49

 47.47

 47.46

 47.44

 47.42

 47.41

 47.38

 47.37

 47.38

 47.42

 47.40

 47.38

 47.37

 47.35

 47.31

 47.28

 47.27

 47.25

 47.23

 47.18

 47.13

 47.07

 47.06

 47.05

STORAGE

-0.03

-0.01

-0.01

+0.00

-0.01

-0.01

+0.00

-0.01

-0.01

-0.01

-0.03

-0.01

-0.01

-0.03

-0.01

+0.01

+0.04

-0.03

-0.01

-0.01

-0.03

-0.04

-0.03

-0.01

-0.03

-0.01

-0.05

-0.05

-0.06

-0.01

-0.01

CHANGE

34

43

41

49

43

42

49

43

41

40

32

38

40

35

41

52

66

36

39

41

34

26

32

43

35

43

22

22

9

38

35

INFLOW

 10

 10

 10

 10

 10

 10

 10

 10

 10

 10

 10

 10

 10

 10

 10

 10

 10

 10

 10

 10

 10

 10

 10

 10

 10

 10

 10

 10

 10

 10

 10

SPILL

 23

 23

 23

 23

 23

 23

 23

 23

 23

 23

 23

 23

 23

 23

 23

 23

 23

 23

 23

 23

 23

 23

 23

 23

 23

 23

 23

 23

 23

 23

 23

OUTLET

 14

 16

 15

 16

 16

 16

 16

 16

 15

 13

 12

 12

 13

 15

 14

 13

 14

 16

 13

 14

 14

 12

 12

 16

 15

 17

 14

 14

 8

 11

 9

C.F.S.

 .36

 .39

 .38

 .39

 .40

 .40

 .40

 .41

 .38

 .32

 .31

 .31

 .33

 .37

 .34

 .33

 .35

 .41

 .33

 .34

 .36

 .31

 .30

 .40

 .38

 .42

 .34

 .35

 .19

 .27

 .23

INCHES

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .02

 .00

 .00

PRECIP

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-ORLAND PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

AUGUST 2010 RUN DATE: 08/18/2011

IN LAKE

EVAPORATION

INCHES

C.F.S.

COMPUTED*

1000 ACRE-FEET

RELEASE - C.F.S.

TOTALS -.52 1,184 713 310 431 10.80 .02

ACRE-FEET -520 2,348 1,414 615 855

COMMENTS:

* COMPUTED INFLOW IS THE SUM OF CHANGE IN STORAGE, RELEASES AND EVAPORATION.

DATA BASED ON 24 HOUR PERIOD ENDING 0800 HOURS.

SUMMARY

RELEASE (ACRE-FEET)

SPILL 615

OUTLET

TOTAL

 1,414

 2,029

PRECIPITATION

THIS MONTH =

TO DATE =

 .02

JULY 1, 2010 .02

 47.57

STONY GORGE RESERVOIR DAILY OPERATIONS
§ 11.70 Quantification phase—general. ( a ) *Requirement.* ( 1 ) Upon completing the Injury Determination phase, the authorized official shall quantify for each resource determined to be injured and for which damages will be sought, the effect of the discharge or release in terms of the reduction from the baseline condition in the quantity and quality of services, as the phrase is used in this part, provided by the injured resource using the guidance provided in the Quantification phase of this part.
( 2 ) The Quantification phase consists of § 11.70—general; § 11.71—service reduction quantification; § 11.72—baseline services determination; and § 11.73—resource recoverability analysis, of this part.
( b ) *Purpose.* The purpose of the Quantification phase is to quantify the effects of the discharge or release on the injured natural resources for use in determining the appropriate amount of compensation.
( c ) *Steps in the Quantification phase.* In the Quantification phase, the extent of the injury shall be measured, the baseline condition of the injured resource shall be estimated, the baseline services shall be identified, the recoverability of the injured resource shall be determined, and the reduction in services that resulted from the discharge or release shall be estimated.
( d ) *Completion of Quantification phase.* Upon completing the Quantification phase, the authorized official shall make a determination as to the reduction in services that resulted from the discharge or release. This Quantification Determination shall be used in the Damage Determination phase and shall be maintained as part of the Report of Assessment described in § 11.90 of this part.
#### § 725.464 Record of hearing.

All hearings shall be open to the public and shall be mechanically or stenographically reported. All evidence upon which the administrative law judge relies for decision shall be contained in the transcript of testimony, either directly or by appropriate reference. All medical reports, exhibits, and any other pertinent document or record, either in whole or in material part, introduced as evidence, shall be marked for identification and incorporated into the record.
#### Andrew Amend v. Alexander Smith.

1. *Exemption—when to be claimed, and its extent.*The debtor is required to make the selection of the property, under the clause of the statute exempting $100 worth “ of other property,” and it must be done at the time of the levy or when he has notice of the levy.

2. Construction *of a statute—not by the jury.*In an action of replevin, by an execution debtor against an officer, for a lot of corn exceeding in value $100, claimed as being exempt from levy, it is error to instruct the jury that in determining the exemption to which the plaintiff is entitled it is their duty to construe the law liberally towards the plaintiff.

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Will county; the Hon. Josiah McRoberts, Judge, presiding.

Messrs. Haley & O’Donnell, for the appellant.

Per Curiam :

This was an action of replevin, for corn standing in the field, which had been levied upon by the defendant, as constable, under execution against the plaintiff.

Plaintiff had raised the crop as tenant, and was to have three-fifths of it. The property was claimed by plaintiff under the 9th clause 13th section Rev. Stat., 499, in relation to property exempt from execution, which is as follows:

> “Ninth—One hundred dollars’ worth of other property suited to his or her condition in life, selected by the debtor.”

Plaintiff claimed and replevied the whole crop. The testimony showed that such three-fifths was worth more than $100.

Defendant’s counsel asked this instruction, which the court below refused:

> “The court instructs the jury that before the plaintiff in this case can recover the corn in question, he must show that he demanded and claimed it as exempt, and selected it as exempt, before levy, or as soon as he had notice of such levy; yet, if the jury believe that his interest in said corn was worth *199more than $100, then plaintiff could not select it as exempt without specifying a portion thereof not exceeding in value $100; and unless they believe such selection was so made, the. law is for the defendant on this point, and the jury will so find.”

The instruction should have been given. The statute requires the debtor to make the selection, and it should be done at the time of the levy, or when the execution debtor has notice of it, to afford an opportunity to levy upon other property, or resort to other mean's for the collection of the execution.

The court gave the following instruction for the plaintiff:

> *“*The jury are instructed that in determining the exemption to which the plaintiff is entitled in this case, it is their duty, under the law, to construe the exemption law liberally towards the plaintiff.”

This is an instruction which should not have been given to the jury.

The judgment will be reversed and the cause remanded.

*Judgment reversed.*
No. 89-6378.

#### Kim *v.*California et al.

Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.
#### In the Matter of the Application of The City of New York, Respondent, etc., Relative to Acquiring Right and Title to and Possession of Certain Upland, etc., Necessary to Be Taken for the Improvement of the Waterfront of the City of New York on the North River, between West Eighteenth and West Twenty-third Streets, etc.; The Erie Railroad Company, Appellant.

Order affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Present — Ingraham, P. J., McLaughlin, Clarke, Scott and Hotchkiss, JJ.
EXHIBIT 10.30

AMENDMENT NO. 1

TO

EMPLOYMENT LETTER AGREEMENT

This Amendment No. 1 is made effective as of January 28, 2007, and modifies and amends the Employment Letter Agreement dated May 2, 2005 (Agreement) between NewPage Corporation
(Company) and Charles J. Aardema (Executive). Terms defined in the Agreement have the same meaning when used in this Amendment unless otherwise indicated. For good and valuable consideration, the
receipt and sufficiency of which is acknowledged, Company and Executive agree as follows:



|1. | Section 2(c) of the Agreement is amended in its entirety to read as follows:
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

(c) Annual Bonus. For performance periods during the Term, Executive will be entitled to participate in the NewPage Corporation management incentive or bonus plan or plans approved annually by the Board
of Directors of the Company (the Annual Incentive Plan). Executives target bonus will be 37% of Base Salary for achieving targets set annually pursuant to the terms the Annual Incentive Plan. Each annual bonus (Annual
Bonus) will be paid on or before March 15th of the year following the tax year in which the relevant services required for payment have been performed. There will be no cap on the amount of any Annual Bonus.



|2. | Except as modified by this Amendment, the Agreement remains in full force and effect.
|-- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                    |  |                   |  |                       
|------------------- |  | ----------------- |  | ----------------------
|Company:            |  | Executive:       
|NewPage Corporation |  |                  
|                    |  |                  
|By:                 |  | /s/ Mark A. Suwyn |  | /s/ Charles J. Aardema
|                    |  |                   |  | Charles J. Aardema    
|Title:              |  | Chairman and CEO  |  |
Exhibit 13.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In
connection with the Annual Report on Form 20-F of StealthGas Inc. (the Company) for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the
undersigned officer of the Company hereby certifies to the undersigneds knowledge, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350), that:



| | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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: April 30, 2012



/s/ Konstantinos SistovarisKonstantinos SistovarisChief Financial Officer
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Movements of wild pigs inLouisiana and Mississippi, 2011-13**
 
Report | Table
 
SuDoc Number:I 19.76:2014-1241
Item Number:0624-H (online)
CGP systemNumber:000942328
 
April 23, 2018
OFFICE OF MAYOR 102 TH!RD AVENUE SOUTHEAST JAMESTOWN, NORTH DAKOTA 58401

1/3/2014

Mr. Kevin Schlemmer Chief, EAS & DomesticAnalysis Room 6401 Office ofAviation Analysis 1200 NewJersey Ave, SE Washington, DC 20590

Dear

### Mr. Schlemmer, "THE BUFFALO CITY" PHONE (701) 252-5900 FAX (701) 252-5903

, .•1

On behalf

### ofmyself, Mayor Katie Andersen and the Jamestown City Council, I would like to respond to the proposed 

### 2013 DOT Essential Air Service contract, Docket OST-1997"2785. As you know, our sole air carrier service is currently provided by Great Lakes Airlines with a 19-seat Beech 1900D. operating twice daily to Minneapolis/St. Paul (KMSP). Our present service is operated on a partial-code share with Delta Air Lines. Though we believe the Jamestown area traveling**p~blic** still prefers to fly into Minneapolis/St. Paul, Great Lakes Airlines has not provided 

### our community with the reliable, affordable air service expected. We've suffered from very expensive through-fares and poor service for travelers connecting with other airlines at MSP, and GreatLakes has exhibited dismal reliability for the duration oftheir contract. Therefore, we supportthe bid for air service submitted by SkyWest in partnership with United Airlines with one JMS-dedicated daily flight to and from DenverInternational Airport utilizing a CRJ-200, 50 passengerjet. We are fully aware that the SkyWest bid does not meet the 12 roundtrip/week requirement as stipulated inthe 

### RFP, but 

### still affirm thatthis is ourbest option. SkyWest's performance history as a reliable airline and the relationship with United Airlines in the foni:l ofa seamless and integrated marketing agreement make SkyWest the only viablebidder. Sincerely,

# ~uJnd'4-u~ Katie Andersen Mayor ofJamestown

# J/lmllllfiWR ftltJilllltll

# AiiJilllf Admir:atDon Weiss 

### Field

## ~\S~o 

# ..

.......,, .

### ,~

# .....**\cr.~** P,tAL

# ·~~

CRJ-200

Great Lakes



# Jan Feb Mar Apr MayJun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 

# .2.011 .2012 .2013

The Jamestown Regional Airport was served by Mesaba/Pinnacle Airlines d.b.a. Delta Connection until March 2012. From December 2011 through February 2012 Delta Connection utilized a Canadair CRJ-200 jet, which broughtforth a dramatic increase in passenger boarding's as illustrated by this chart.