alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: John Mietus

To: Finamore, Robert (OST)

Subject: RE: Aeromar/Aeromexico 2002-20954

Date: Wednesday, February 01, 2012 1:47:11 PM

Bob, Aeromexico has confirmed to me that the underlying code-share agreement has terminated.

Thus, Aeromexico no longer seeks the renewal for which it applied in Docket OST-2005-20954 on

May 24, 2006.

Best regards, John

_________________________

John Mietus

Law Office of John Mietus, LLC

6701 Democracy Blvd Ste 300

Bethesda, MD 20817-7500

(202) 747-5212

(240) 396-5362 fax

john@mietuslaw.com

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information in this e-mail and any attachments may be privileged, confidential, or otherwise

protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not review, use, disclose, distribute or copy the information

it contains; destroy this e-mail and notify the sender by reply e-mail or an e-mail to admin@mietuslaw.com. Thanks.

From: Robert.Finamore@dot.gov [mailto:Robert.Finamore@dot.gov] 

Sent: Friday, January 27, 2012 11:21 AM

To: John Mietus

Subject: Aeromar/Aeromexico 2002-20954

Hi John,

Aeromar was granted exemption authority in the referenced docket for code-share operations with

Aeromexico, and Aeromexico was granted a corresponding statement of authorization to display the

Aeromar code on Aeromexico flights between Mexico City-Atlanta/Miami/Houston/New York (JFK), and

there is also a pending renewal request for these services. Over time, we have dealt with that

authority concurrently with Aeromar’s other authority in 1995-379. Aeromar recently filed a new request

in 1995-379, and has notified us that it only wishes to renew its San Luis Potosi/Manzanillo-San

Antonio authority and wants grant of new Saltillo-San Antonio authority that it was recently designated

for as well as its charter authority. There are several other routes previously granted in the referenced

dockets for which Aeromar no longer wants authority, to include the code-share authority it held with

Aeromexico. In light of Aeromar’s request that its code-share authority with Aeromexico not be

renewed, I wanted to verify with you that Aeromexico’s pending request for renewal of its

corresponding statement of authorization need not be renewed either.

Thanks,

Bob

Robert J. Finamore

U.S. Department of Transportation
Office of International Aviation, X-45

Phone: (202) 366-2405
## United States Court of App eals
F O R T H E E I G H T H C I R C U I T

__ __ __ __ __ _ No. 0 9- 35 17

__ __ __ __ __ _ Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca, *
* App el le e, * * App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s v. * Dis tri ct Co ur t fo r th e * W es te rn Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s. Bo bb y Dale W al ke r, * * [UNPUBLISHED] App el la nt

. *

__ __ __ __ __ _ Su bm it te d: Feb ru ary 14 , 20 11 Fi le d: Feb ru ary 28 , 20 11

__ __ __ __ __ _ Befo re RI LEY, Chi ef J ud ge , W OLLMAN and BYE, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ _ PER CURI AM.

Bo bb y Dale W al ke r pl ead ed gu il ty to vi ol at in g 18 U.S.C. § 22 50 ba se d on hi s fai lu re to reg is te r as a se x of fen de r pu rs ua nt to th e Sex Offen de r Reg is tra ti on an d Not ifi cat io n Act (SORNA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 16 90 1- 16 99 1. The di st ric t co ur t se nt en ced 1 hi m to a te rm of th irt y m on th s of im pr is on m en t. W al ke r en te red a co nd it io na l pl ea whi ch pr es erv ed hi s rig ht to br in g th is ap pe al

. He arg ue s th e cri m in al st at ut e (§ 22 50 )

a n d § 1 13 of th e SORNA (4 2 U.S.C. § 16 91 3) vi ol at e th e co m m erce cl au se o f t h e

The Hon or ab le Ro be r t T. Dawso n, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e 1 W es te rn Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s.Uni te d St at es Co ns ti tu ti on be cau se th ey ha ve an in su ffi ci en t ne xu s to th e reg ul at io n

of in te rs ta te co m

m erce

.

W al ke r's arg um en t (wh ic h he ack no wled ge s ra is in g s ol el y for th e p ur

po se of pr es erv in g th e is su e fo r po te nt ia l fu rth er rev ie w) is fo recl os ed in th is ci rcu it by Uni te d St at es v. May, 53 5 F.3 d 91 2, 92 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ) (h ol di ng th at § 22 50 is an ap pr op ria te ex erci se of Co ng res s's po wer to r e g u l a t e th e us e of th e ch an ne ls of in te rs ta te co m

m erce ) an d Uni te d St at es v. Howel l, 55 2 F.3 d 70 9, 71 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ) ("[ A] n an al y si s of § 16 91 3 un de r th e b ro ad au th or it y gr an te d to Co ng res s th ro ug h bo th th e co m

m erce cla us e an d th e en ab li ng ne ces sa ry an d p ro pe r cl au se rev eal s t he st at ut e is co ns ti tu ti on al ly au th or iz ed ."). See al so Uni te d St at es v. Reynol ds , 11 6 F.3 d 32 8, 3 29 (8t h C ir. 1 99 7) ("On e p an el m ay no t o ve rru le an ot he r.").

W e th eref

or e aff irm th e jud gm en t o f co nv ic ti on an d s en te nc e.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-2

-
### §921. Office of Rail Public Counsel

The Office of Rail Public Counsel may appear and be heard in the case in the bankruptcy court involving the reorganization of the Milwaukee Railroad, for purposes of representing affected shippers, localities, and municipalities with respect to the proposed abandonment of any line of the Milwaukee Railroad.

(Pub. L. 96–101, §25, Nov. 4, 1979, 93 Stat. 747.)
### §30525. Apportionment of losses

If the amounts determined under sections 30523 and 30524 of this title are insufficient to pay all claims—

(1) all claimants shall be paid in proportion to their respective losses out of the amount determined under section 30523 of this title; and

(2) personal injury and death claimants, if any, shall be paid an additional amount in proportion to their respective losses out of the additional amount determined under section 30524(b) of this title.

(Pub. L. 109–304, §6(c), Oct. 6, 2006, 120 Stat. 1513, §30507; renumbered §30525 and amended Pub. L. 117–263, div. K, title CXV, §11503(a)(3), (f)(4), Dec. 23, 2022, 136 Stat. 4130, 4131.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 30507 | 46 App.:183(b) (last sentence). | R.S. §4283(b) (last sentence); Aug. 29, 1935, ch. 804, §1, 49 Stat. 960; June 5, 1936, ch. 521, §1, 49 Stat. 1479; Pub. L. 98–498, title II, §213(a), Oct. 19, 1984, 98 Stat. 2306. |
| | 46 App.:184. | R.S. §4284; Feb. 27, 1877, ch. 69, §1 (related to R.S. §4284), 19 Stat. 251. |

Section

This section is substituted for 46 App. U.S.C. 183(b) (last sentence) and 184 (words before semicolon) for clarity and consistency and to eliminate unnecessary words. The text of 46 App. U.S.C. 184 (words after semicolon) is omitted as unnecessary. See G. Gilmore & C. Black, The Law of Admiralty, §10–8 (2d ed. 1975).

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2022—Pub. L. 117–263, §11503(f)(4)(A), substituted "sections 30523 and 30524" for "sections 30505 and 30506" in introductory provisions.

Pub. L. 117–263, §11503(a)(3), renumbered section 30507 of this title as this section.

Par. (1). Pub. L. 117–263, §11503(f)(4)(B), substituted "section 30523" for "section 30505".

Par. (2). Pub. L. 117–263, §11503(f)(4)(C), substituted "section 30524(b)" for "section 30506(b)".
#### In the Matter of Bickford’s Inc., Respondent-Appellant, v. Tax Commission of the City of New York et al., Appellants-Respondents.

Final order, entered on June 3, 1958, reducing the assessments on the petitioner’s real property for the years 1956-57 and 1957-58 unanimously affirmed. No opinion. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, Stevens and Eager, JJ.
### **CHAPTER 11—DISCOVERY, DEVELOPMENT, AND MARKING OF WATER HOLES, ETC., BY GOVERNMENT**

Sec.
361.
Authority to explore for, develop, and mark water holes, etc.
362.
Injury to signposts and filling up or fouling water supply.
363.
Rules and regulations by Secretary.
### §55301. Report on administration of programs by other Federal departments and agencies

(a) In General.—The Administrator of the Maritime Administration shall annually submit to Congress a report on the administration by—

(1) the Department of Defense of section 2631 of title 10; and

(2) other Federal departments and agencies of programs the Administrator determines are subject to section 55305 of this title.

(b) Contents.—Each annual report required under subsection (a) shall include, for each Federal department or agency that administers a program covered by the report—

(1) the gross tonnage of cargo (equipment, materials, or agricultural products), expressed by type of cargo, transported on United States flag vessels as compared to on foreign vessels; and

(2) the total number of United States flag vessels and total number of foreign vessels contracted by each department or agency.

(c) Agency Reporting Requirements.—Not later than January 31 of each year, the head of each Federal department or agency that administers a program covered by a report required under subsection (a) shall submit to the Administrator of the Maritime Administration the information described in subsection (b) for that department or agency.

(Added Pub. L. 118–31, div. C, title XXXV, §3521(a)(1), Dec. 22, 2023, 137 Stat. 819.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 55301 was renumbered section 55123 of this title.
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3116 

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain glass articles. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 29, 2005 

Mr. KIRK introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain glass articles. 

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

3 SECTION 1. CERTAIN GLASS ARTICLES. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.09.54 Glass articles valued over $5 

each, whether or not put up 

in sets, put up for mail 

order retail sale, and each 

weighing not over 4 kg together with their retail packaging (provided for in subheading 7013.99.90) ............ Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2008 ’’. 
2 

•HR 3116 IH 

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies to articles entered, or withdrawn 

3 from warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day 

4 after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ
#### PEOPLE ex rel. HARDING v. COLLIER et al. PEOPLE ex rel. NEAL v. SAME. PEOPLE ex rel. SIMS v. SAME. PEOPLE ex rel. WILLS v. SAME.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

January 9, 1903.)

Separate proceedings by the people of the state of New York, on the relation, respectively, of John M. Harding, of Alexander Neal, of Michael J. Sims, and of William H. Wills, against William Miller Collier and others, constituting the State Civil Service Commission.

No opinions. Orders affirmed, without costs, on the authority of Matter of Blust V. Collier, 62 App. Div. 478, 70 N. Y. Supp. 774.
any such award that constitutes deferred compensation within the meaning of Section409A of the Code, the timing of payment of such award shall not be acceleratedunless the Change of Control constitutes a 409A Change of Control.”     4. The following definition shall be added to the end of Section 5.3 of the EmploymentAgreement:“409A Change of Control’ shall mean the occurrence of a change of control event (asdefined in Treasury regulation section 1.409A-3(i)(5)) with respect to the Company.”     5. The Employment Agreement shall be revised to add the following new Section 17:“17. Application of Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code.     (a) Delayed Payment Restriction. Notwithstanding any provision in thisAgreement to the contrary, if any payment or benefit provided for herein or pursuantto any other agreement or plan of the Company to which Employee is entitled to anypayment or benefit would be subject to additional taxes and interest under Section409A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”) if the Employee’sreceipt of such payment or benefit is not delayed until the Section 409A PaymentDate, then such payment or benefit shall not be provided to Employee (or Employee’sestate, if applicable) until the Section 409A Payment Date. For purposes of thisAgreement, “Section 409A Payment Date” shall mean the earlier of (1) the date of theEmployee’s death or (2) the date which is six months after the date of terminationof the Employee’s employment with the Company. Employee hereby agrees to be bound bythe Company’s determination of its “specified employees” (as such term is defined inSection 409A of the Code) in accordance with any of the methods permitted under theregulations issued under Section 409A of the Code.     (b) Separation from Service. For purposes of this Agreement,references Employee’s termination of employment will be interpreted consistentlywith the term “separation from service” within the meaning of Section 409A of theCode.     (c) References to Section 409A. References in this Agreement toSection 409A of the Code include both that section of the Code itself and anyregulations and authoritative guidance promulgated thereunder.”     6. This Amendment may be executed in two or more counterparts each of which shall be deemed anoriginal but which taken together shall constitute one and the same instrument.
2

 
     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Amendment as of the date first writtenabove.       SCISSORTAIL ENERGY, LLC       By: /s/ John R. Eckel, Jr.       Name: John R. Eckel, Jr.  Title: Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer                 /s/ Sharon Robinson     SHARON ROBINSON
3
### Contacts. With whom outside the FAA hasthis proposal been discussed?

Organization Person Contacted 

### Date 

# -I Response Transport Canada Richard Topham 01/05/10

. No Objection.

6[3-952-4357 Bombardier Robert Farinas 5[4- 11/19/09 Senl Elllail 

## , SlippoI1ecl by providing 

### , 855-500 I ,,50417 reCille~lec1 docuillentatioll. Jenny Young x58610 Regional Airline Dave Lotterer 01/0.),10 Len rvlessugc. Association 202-367-1152

lotterer@raEl,org


## -----------------~~~~~-~---------------------~---" 

# tl-,A

- 20 10- 0

# Y-~

# Cf
#### Constance Andrews et al., Respondents, v James Cain, Appellant.

Third Department,

June 22, 1978

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Hogan & Sarzynski (Edward J. Sarzynski*of counsel), for appellant.

*Friedlander, Friedlander & Reizes (Leslie N. Reizes*of counsel), for respondents.

*613OPINION OF THE COURT

Mikoll, J.

Plaintiffs seek recovery for defendant’s negligence in failing to prosecute two negligence cases on their behalf stemming from accidents occurring on October 8, 1965 and June 27, 1967. The parties had executed a retainer agreement after the first accident providing that defendant’s fee would be 25% of any settlement, or *3316%*of any sum recovered pursuant to litigation. The same agreement as to fees was orally made between the parties after the second accident. In the only case on the issue, the court in *Childs v Comstock*(69 App Div 160) reduced plaintiff’s recovery against his attorney by the 25% contingency fee the defendant would have received had he fulfilled his part of the bargain. The defendant urges on the court that the rule adopted in *Childs v Comstock (supra)*is consonant with the general rule as to the measure of damages in seeking legal redress for a wrong; that is, legal expenses are not awarded to a successful litigant in the prosecution of an action as general or special damages. We find the contrary viewpoint articulated in *Duncan v Lord*(409 F Supp 687), to be more logically sound and in keeping with contemporary legal opinions (e.g., *Benard v Walkup,*272 Cal App 2d 595; *Winter v Brown,*365 A2d 381, 386). We conclude that deducting a hypothetical contingency fee fails to compensate plaintiffs fully for their loss of jury verdicts or settlements, since any fee which plaintiffs may have had to pay the defendant had he successfully prosecuted the suit is canceled out by the attorney’s fees plaintiffs have incurred in retaining counsel in the present action. Crediting the defendant with a fee he has failed to earn not only rewards his wrongdoing, but places on plaintiffs’ shoulders the necessity of paying twice for the same service. As a further consideration, we note that, since the contract was not fulfilled, it was impossible to determine what the deduction from plaintiffs’ award would have been. Since the difficulties of proof were of his own creation, defendant should not be permitted to benefit from them.

The judgment should be affirmed, without costs.

Sweeney, J. P., Staley, Jr., Larkin and Herlihy, JJ., concur.

Judgment affirmed, without costs.
Exhibit 11

                     METRIS COMPANIES INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
                        Computation of Earnings Per Share

In thousands, except per share amounts              Three Months Ended March 31,
                                                          1999      1998
BASIC:
Net income available to common stockholders .........   $17,115   $11,224
                                                        =======   =======

Weighted average number of common shares outstanding     19,259    19,225

Net income per share ................................   $   .89   $   .58

DILUTED:

Net income available to common stockholders .........   $17,115   $11,224
                                                        =======   =======

Weighted average number of common shares outstanding     19,259    19,225
Net effect of assumed exercise of stock options based
on treasury stock method using average market price         873     1,071
                                                        -------   -------
                                                         20,132    20,296
                                                        -------   -------
Net income per share ................................   $   .85   $   .55
### §359. Penalties

#### (a) Failure to make report or furnish information; false or fraudulent statement or claim

Any officer or agent of an employer, or any employee representative, or any employee acting in his own behalf, or any person whether or not of the character hereinbefore defined, who shall willfully fail or refuse to make any report or furnish any information required by the Board in the administration of this chapter, or who shall knowingly make or aid in making or cause to be made any false or fraudulent statement or report when a statement or report is required to be made for the purposes of this chapter, or who shall knowingly make or aid in making or cause to be made any false or fraudulent statement or claim for the purpose of causing benefits or other payment to be made or not to be made under this chapter, shall be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000 or by imprisonment not exceeding one year, or both.

#### (b) Agreement by employee to bear employer's contribution

Any agreement by an employee to pay all or any portion of the contribution required of his employer under this chapter shall be void, and it shall be unlawful for any employer, or officer or agent of an employer, to make, require, or permit any employee to bear all or any portion of such contribution. Any employer, or officer or agent of an employer, who violates any provision of this subsection shall be punished for each such violation by a fine of not more than $10,000 or by imprisonment not exceeding one year, or both.

#### (c) Punishments not specifically provided

Any person who violates any provision of this chapter, the punishment for which is not otherwise provided, shall be punished for each such violation by a fine of not more than $1,000 or by imprisonment not exceeding one year, or both.

#### (d) Payment and disposition of fines or penalties

All fines and penalties imposed by a court pursuant to this chapter shall be paid to the court and be remitted from time to time by order of the judge to the Treasury of the United States to be credited to the account.

(June 25, 1938, ch. 680, §9, 52 Stat. 1103.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This chapter, referred to in text, was in the original "this Act", meaning act June 25, 1938, ch. 680, 52 Stat. 1094, which enacted this chapter and amended sections 503 and 1104 and former section 1107 of Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see section 367 of this title and Tables.
### §5614. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 5614 was editorially reclassified as section 11114 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.
### §70508. Operation of submersible vessel or semi-submersible vessel without nationality

(a) In General.—An individual may not operate by any means or embark in any submersible vessel or semi-submersible vessel that is without nationality and that is navigating or has navigated into, through, or from waters beyond the outer limit of the territorial sea of a single country or a lateral limit of that country's territorial sea with an adjacent country, with the intent to evade detection.

(b) Evidence of Intent To Evade Detection.—In any civil enforcement proceeding for a violation of subsection (a), the presence of any of the indicia described in paragraph (1)(A), (E), (F), or (G), or in paragraph (4), (5), or (6), of section 70507(b) may be considered, in the totality of the circumstances, to be prima facie evidence of intent to evade detection.

(c) Defenses.—

(1) In general.—It is a defense in any civil enforcement proceeding for a violation of subsection (a) that the submersible vessel or semi-submersible vessel involved was, at the time of the violation—

(A) a vessel of the United States or lawfully registered in a foreign nation as claimed by the master or individual in charge of the vessel when requested to make a claim by an officer of the United States authorized to enforce applicable provisions of United States law;

(B) classed by and designed in accordance with the rules of a classification society;

(C) lawfully operated in government-regulated or licensed activity, including commerce, research, or exploration; or

(D) equipped with and using an operable automatic identification system, vessel monitoring system, or long range identification and tracking system.

(2) Production of documents.—The defenses provided by this subsection are proved conclusively by the production of—

(A) government documents evidencing the vessel's nationality at the time of the offense, as provided in article 5 of the 1958 Convention on the High Seas;

(B) a certificate of classification issued by the vessel's classification society upon completion of relevant classification surveys and valid at the time of the offense; or

(C) government documents evidencing licensure, regulation, or registration for research or exploration.

(d) Civil Penalty.—A person violating this section shall be liable to the United States for a civil penalty of not more than $1,000,000.

(Added Pub. L. 110–407, title II, §202(a), Oct. 13, 2008, 122 Stat. 4299.)
#### § 965.406 Benefit/cost analysis for similar projects.

PHAs with more than one project of similar design and utilities service may prepare a benefit/cost analysis for a representative project. A finding that a change in metering is not cost effective for the representative project is sufficient reason for the PHA not to perform a benefit/cost analysis on the remaining similar projects.