alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

PENSACOLA DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

ex rel. ROBERT V. SMITH, 

Plaintiff, 

v. Case No. 3:20cv3678/MCR/EMT 

JAY A. ODOM; 

OKALOOSA COUNTY, 

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, 

Defendants. 

____________________________________ 

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE

BY SARAH WILBANKS 

Pursuant to Rule 11.1 of the Local Rules for this Court, Sarah Wilbanks 

respectfully moves for admission pro hac vice to this Court in order to represent 

Plaintiff Jay A. Odom in this matter. In support of this motion, Ms. Wilbanks states 

the following: 

1. Ms. Wilbanks is a member in good standing of the Illinois Bar. Ms. 

Wilbanks is also a member of the General Bar of the U.S. District Court for the 

Northern District of Illinois. A Certificate of Good Standing from the Clerk of the 

Supreme Court of Illinois is attached to this motion. 

Case 3:20-cv-03678-MCR-EMT Document 18 Filed 01/28/21 Page 1 of 4
2 

2. Ms. Wilbanks is an attorney at the law firm of Kaplan Kirsch & 

Rockwell LLP and has been retained by Mr. Odom as co-counsel in this matter in 

addition to the counsel of record, Ben Gordon. 

3. Ms. Wilbanks has never been subject to disciplinary proceedings by 

any state or federal bar nor are there any pending disciplinary proceedings against 

her. 

4. Ms. Wilbanks has reviewed and is familiar with the Local Rules of this 

Court and has successfully completed the requisite online Attorney Admission 

Tutorial (Confirmation Number: FLND16117953124097). 

5. Ms. Wilbanks has reviewed and is familiar with the online CM/ECF 

Attorney User’s Guide provided by this Court and with the CM/ECF e-filing system. 

Ms. Wilbanks maintains an upgraded PACER account, through which she has 

submitted a request for pro hac vice admission, which has been approved. 

6. Ms. Wilbanks has paid the requisite pro hac vice fee at the time of filing 

of this motion. 

Case 3:20-cv-03678-MCR-EMT Document 18 Filed 01/28/21 Page 2 of 4
3 

WHEREFORE, Ms. Wilbanks respectfully requests permission to appear in 

this Court for this cause only. 

Dated: January 28, 2021 By: /s/ Sarah Wilbanks 

Sarah Wilbanks 

KAPLAN KIRSCH & ROCKWELL LLP 

1675 Broadway, Suite 2300 

Denver, CO 80202 

(303) 825-7029 

(303) 825-7005 Facsimile 

swilbanks@kaplankirsch.com

Attorney for Jay A. Odom 

Case 3:20-cv-03678-MCR-EMT Document 18 Filed 01/28/21 Page 3 of 4
Case 3:20-cv-03678-MCR-EMT Document 18 Filed 01/28/21 Page 4 of 4
### Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA

- 

### 2015

- 0482 Directorate Identifier: 

### 2015

- NE

- 06

- AD

If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If

they do not, click (or Tab) into an d then out of the changed cell

.

Estimated Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection,

replacement)

Do not include on

condition costs here Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine,

propeller, appliance)

Work

- hours

(include

access, testing,

and close

- up) Labor

co st

(@$8 5 /h

our) Parts Cost Total Costs

(labor +

parts) Number of

U.S.

Registered

Products Total Cost

for U.S. Fleet



### Inspection 112 .0 $ 9,520.0

0 $ 9,520.00 

### 16 $ 152,320.00



### Quill shaft $ 0.00 $5,280 $ 5,280.00 

### 16 $ 84,480.00



### PT Shaft $ 0.00 $3,654 $ 3,654.00 

### 16 $ 58,464.00



### Supporting Cone $ 0.00 $10,942 $ 10,942.00 

### 16 $ 175,072.00



### Expendible

supplies $ 0.00 $1,500 $ 1,500.00 

### 16 $ 24,000.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00



### The known number of products in compliance: 

### 0

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $ 494,336



### Costs covered under warran ty ( if known ) $ 

### 494

, 336

On

- Condition Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection,

replacement) Work

- hours

(include access,

testing, and close

up) Labor cost

(@$85/hour) Parts Cost Cost per Product

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

### Special considerations for Economic Analysis ( Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table

that was assumed or mi ght not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs) 

### : 

### GE Aviation

Czech's Service Bulletin M601D/44 Revision 2 states that expenses are "covered by GEAC."

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significan t regulatory action”?

YES * NO

* Explanation:

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant?

YES * NO

* Explanation:

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? E xplain for

either a Yes or No answer.

YES NO

Explanation:

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for

aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation?

YES * NO



### * Explanation 

### :
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION

I,
Jerry C. Atkin, certify that:

1.     I
have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of SkyWest, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2008;

2.     Based
on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.     Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of and for the periods presented in this report.

4.     The
registrant's other certifying officer(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)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15(d)-15(f))
for the registrant and have:



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



Date:
February 20, 2009

/s/ JERRY C. ATKIN Jerry C. Atkin Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer


---



QuickLinks
#### § 319.8-5 Marking of containers.

Every bale or other container of cotton lint, linters, waste, or covers imported or offered for entry shall be plainly marked or tagged with a bale number or other mark to distinguish it from other bales or containers of similar material. Bales of lint, linters, and waste from approved areas of Mexico, the West Coast of Mexico, or Northwest Mexico shall be tagged or otherwise marked to show the gin or mill of origin unless they are immediately exported.

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 0579-0049)

[27 FR 5389, June 7, 1962, as amended at 48 FR 57466, Dec. 30, 1983]
2023663675 Line OSTW85 310 033436 p.m. 04 152010 1 11 GLENN MGTn THOMPSON COMMIl'TEeS,

6TH DISTRICT. fA'ENNSVl.VANlA AGRICULTURE 

# ctCongrtt(t(oftbe llntttb**~tattt(** EDUCATION AND LABOR 

### :I!}OU9't 

## of**l\£Prt9'tntatfbe~** 124 CANNON HouSi OFfICE BUIlDiNG 1202)Z26-5121 SMALL BUSINESS (2021225-6798 (FAA) 

### .asUington. J)(: 

### 20515-3805 April 15.2010

The Honorable Ray LaHood. Secretary U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 New Jersey Ayenue, SE Washington, DC 20590 

### RE: DOT -OST -20J 0-0074, Establishment of the Future of AviationAdvisory Committee Dear Secretary LaHood: Jam pleased to learn ofDOT's intent to establish the Future ofAviation AdvisoryCommittee, in order to make recommendations to address the continued competitiveness and needs ofthe U.S. aviation industry. With this announcement, I write to offer my strong support for the appointment ofMaurice·A. Parker to the committee. Mr. Parker is currently President and Executive DirectorofRegional Aviation Partners (RAP), an advocacy group representing the interests ofsmall community air service stakeholders with the goal ofpreserving the Essential Air Service Program. Mr. Parker has 

### an extensive government career spanning over 30 years. 

### His previous employment history included work with the FAA, National 

### Labor Relations Board, National Mediation Board

- 

### where he held the position of

### Head Mediator from 

### 1918 until his retirement in 

### 1991, 

### and the Social Security Administration. Additionally, 

### Mr. Parker 

### has served as a Member ofthe Board of

### Directors ofMesa 

### Air Group, Inc, since November 

### 1998. During my tenure in Congress, 

### Mr. Parker has served 

### as a valuable resource. He has provided continued advocacy and a strong voice for the often over-looked small, rural, community airports and the carriers 

### that provide them with a vital link to our national transportation system. Mr. Parker'sknowledge an advocacy not only has served my rural district, but countless communities across the country. Because ofhis extensive background and expertise with a critical portion ofthe aviation industry, JrespectfuI1y request your sincere consideration ofMr. Maurice 

### A. Parker 

### as an appointee to the Future Aviation Advisory Committee. Sincerely,

# rll--.GT**-~** ........**G~hompson** . Member ofCongress

TITUSVILLE flEu.EFONTE 127 West Sf'IIlNG Sl'I!EET. Sum; C . http://thompson.house.gov 3555 BENNEP 1'u<E. SUIT!! 101 TITU!Mt.LE. PA 16364 BeU.EFOl<I1E. PA 16823 18141821-3985 1814) 827-7307IFAX) PRINTED Dill RECYCLED PAPER (814Ill!i.14l'lfi**(Rl.t)~'lR(FAX)** 

### S10-100415-022
§ 301.51-2 Regulated articles. ( a ) *List of regulated articles.* The Administrator has determined that certain articles present a risk of spreading Asian longhorned beetle. A list of all such articles is found on the internet at *www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ourfocus/planthealth/plant-pest-and-disease-programs/pests-and-diseases/asian-longhorned-beetle/asian-longhorned-beetle .* Lists of all regulated articles may also be obtained by request from any local PPQ office; local offices are listed in telephone directories and on the internet at *www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ourfocus/planthealth/ppq-program-overview/sphd .*
( b ) *Normal process for designating additional regulated articles.* ( 1 ) If the Administrator determines that an article not already listed at *www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ourfocus/planthealth/plant-pest-and-disease-programs/pests-and-diseases/asian-longhorned-beetle/asian-longhorned-beetle* presents a risk of spreading Asian longhorned beetle, APHIS will publish a notice in the Federal Register proposing to designate the article as a regulated article for Asian longhorned beetle. The notice will provide the basis for this determination, and will request public comment.
( 2 ) If no comments are received on the notice, or if the comments do not change the Administrator's determination, APHIS will publish a second notice in the Federal Register designating the article as a regulated article for Asian longhorned beetle and listing it.
( c ) *Immediate designation of regulated articles.* Any other article, product, or means of conveyance not already listed in accordance with paragraph (a) of this section may be designated a regulated article on an immediate basis if an inspector determines that it presents a risk of spreading Asian longhorned beetle and notifies the person in possession of the article, product, or means of conveyance that it is now subject to the restrictions of this subpart.
[87 FR 80006, Dec. 29, 2022]
#### In the Matter of Donald R. Maxwell (Admitted as Donald Richard Maxwell), an Attorney, Respondent. Suffolk County Bar Association, Petitioner.

Second Department,

June 30, 1969.

*Howard M. Finkelstein*for petitioner.

*Meyer & Wexler (Leonard D. Wexler*of counsel), for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

On April 17, 1969 this disciplinary proceeding was instituted against respondent charging, among other things, that he (1) appropriated to his own use the proceeds of a $19,521.23 check payable to an estate; (2) used a satisfaction piece to obtain a $12,266 check, the proceeds of which he appropriated to his own use; (3) converted to his own use the proceeds of a $14,288.82 check payable to the order of a client; (4) converted to his own use a $10,000 check payable to the order of a corporation, which sum was repaid after the corporation retained other counsel; (5) appropriated to his own use a $4,075 check payable to the order of a client; and (6) commingled clients’ funds with his own.

*306On April 30, 1969 respondent filed his answer in which he admitted the foregoing charges. With his answer he als'o submitted his formal resignation as a member of the Bar. On June *2,*1969 the issues raised by the petition and answer, and the question as to the acceptance of respondent’s resignation, were referred to a Justice of the Supreme Court to hear and report. Thereafter, on June 9, 1969, respondent was indicted by the Grand Jury in Suffolk County upon a number of charges of forgery and grand larceny. The indictment is pending in the County Court, Suffolk 'County.

On the court’s own motion, and upon the basis of respondent’s admissions in his answer and the tender of his resignation, respondent should be suspended from the practice of law, effective immediately, the suspension to continue until the further order of this court; and the hearing before the Justice of the Supreme Court to whom this proceeding was referred is stayed until the disposition of the pending criminal indictment against respondent.

Beldock, P. J., Christ, Brennan, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

On the court’s own motion in this proceeding to discipline respondent, an attorney, for professional misconduct, (1) respondent is suspended from the practice of law, effective immediately, the suspension to continue until the further order of this court, and (2) the hearing before the Justice of the Supreme Court to whom this proceeding was referred is stayed until the disposition of the pending criminal indictment against respondent.
First Department,

September, 1980

(September 2, 1980)

#### In the Matter of Bengal Cabaret, Inc., Doing Business as Nirvana, Petitioner, v New York State Liquor Authority, Respondent.

Determination of respondent dated July 21, 1980, unanimously confirmed, without costs and without disbursements. Oral application for continuation of stay granted until September 2, 1980 (see CPLR 5519, subd [e]). Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Markewich, Silverman and Bloom, JJ.
# Andrews**~Myers** HOUSTON I AUSTIN

Honorable ChristopherA. Prine Clerk ofthe Court First Court ofAppeals 301 Fannin Street Houston, TX 77002 August 21, 2015 ROBERT A PLESSALA DIRECT DIAL 713.850.4217 RPLESSALA@ANDREWSMYERS.COM

VIA E-FILING

Re: 

### Darrell Julian and Ted Hennis v. CadenceMcShane Construction Co., LLC end Pinpoint Commercial, LP, General Partner ofPPC GP, LLC Court ofAppeals Number: 1-15-00465-CV Trial Court Case Number: 2014-13825 DearMr. Prine: I am in receipt ofAppellants' Motion for an Extension ofTime to File a Reply Brief. The Appellees are not opposed to the Motion. Unfortunately, our lack of opposition was not sufficiently communicated to counsel for Appellants. I apologize for any confusion. Counsel is being copied with this letter. Thank you for your courtesies. Very truly yours, IslRobert A. Plessala RobertA. Plessala RAPlslg

Andrews Myers• Attorneys at Law 3900 Essex Lane, Suite 800 •Houston, Texas 77027-5198 T 713.850.4200 F 713.850.4211 • andrewsmyers.com 4816·7423-2871 3189.9 ACCEPTED

01-15-00465-CV FIRST COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS 8/21/2015 10:29:54 AM CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERKHonorable ChristopherA. Prine Clerk ofthe Court August 21, 2015 Page 2


### CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy ofthe foregoing instrument was forwarded to all counsel ofrecord in accordance with Rule 9.5 ofthe TEXAS RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE on this the 21st day ofAugust, 2015. VIA E-MAIL Troy Tindal trov@tindalllawfirm.com Tindal Law Firm 17225 El Camino Real, Suite 190 Houston, TX 77058 

### Attorneysfor Third Party Defendants! Appellants
Isl RobertA. Plessala Robert A. Plessala

4816-7423-2871, v. 1

4816-7423-2871 3189.9
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

vs. 3:98cr126/LAC

JEFFREY THERCY

ORDER

The defendant has filed a Brief for Certificate of Appeability and a motion for leave

to appeal in forma pauperis (doc. 317 & 318), to appeal the court’s denial of his motion

pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). (Doc. 312). Unless a certificate of appealability is

issued, the defendant may not take an appeal from the final order denying Section 2255

relief, or relief pursuant to Rule 60(b). See 28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(1)(B); Gonzalez v. Secretary

of Department of Corrections, 317 F.3d 1308, 1312 (11 Cir. 2003). It does not appear that

th

a certificate of appealability is required under the circumstances in this case where a

defendant seeks to appeal the denial of a motion pursuant to § 3582 that was not

construed as a § 2255 motion. See United States v. Hernandez, 2004 WL 1147258, *1

(4 Cir. 2004) (finding no certificate of appealability required, citing 28 U.S.C. §

th

2253(c)(1)(B)); Lowe v. United States, 2007 WL 41951, *1 (M.D.Ga. 2007) (same); United

States v. Robinson, 2006 WL 2350016, *2 (E.D.Tex.,2006) (same); U.S. v. CamarilloHernandez, 2003 WL 1529582, *1 (5 Cir. 2003) (reviewing merits of § 3582 appeal th

without certificate of appealability); United States v. Lindsey, 3 Fed.Appx. 116-117, ,**1

(4 Cir. 2001) (same); compare United States v. Walters ,213 Fed.Appx. 190, *191, 2007

th

WL 136694, **1 (4 Cir. 2007); United States v. Crawford , 2007 WL 1745876, *1 (11 Cir. th th

2007); United States v. Perez, 197 Fed.Appx. 895, *896, 2006 WL 2805648, **1 (11 Cir. th

2006); United States v. Jackson, 187 Fed.Appx. 381, 2006 WL 1824839, **1 (5 Cir. th
Page 2 of 2

2006); United States v. Miller, 116 Fed. Appx 457 (4 Cir. 2004). To the extent one would th

be required, the court finds that defendant has not made a substantial showing of a denial

of a constitutional right for the reasons stated in the court’s order denying his original

motion. (Doc. 312). Thus, his request for a certificate of appealability will be denied.

With respect to defendant’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, the court

finds that the appeal is not taken in good faith and he is not otherwise entitled to so

proceed. Fed.R.App.P. 24(a)(3). Defendant’s motion is therefore denied and he shall pay

the $455.00 filing fee within thirty days.

DONE AND ORDERED this 20 day of October, 2009. th

s/L.A. Collier 

LACEY A. COLLIER

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case No: 3:98cr126/LAC
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-10674

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

DERRICK LAMONT MONEY,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:08-CR-327-1

Before SMITH, PRADO, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Derrick Lamont

Money has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Money has not filed a response. Our

independent review of the record and counsel’s brief discloses no nonfrivolous

issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is

GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the

APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

April 20, 2010

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not *

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

Case: 09-10674 Document: 00511085366 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/20/2010
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 22 - 0478 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. JOSIAH BRACKETT,

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including May 3 1 , 202 3 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

April 24 2023

04/24/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0478
To: US Department of Transportation

Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Ave SW Washington DC 20591 RE C 

# Addendum to Petition I received the following request in an email yesterday: Describe the aircraft make(s), model(s), and type(s )(i.e., fixed
-wing, rotorcraft, lighter
- than
- air), and power source for the proposed UAS operation. The description(s) should include the maximum weight (including payload). This information can be located in the aircraft manual(s). The information requested is as follows: The device we intend to use is a DJI Phantom 3 Pro. This a rotorcraft of 1280 grams. The power source is a 4480 mAh
- 15.2 volt LiPo 4s battery. Maximum flight time is 23 minutes. A sony EXMOR 1⁄2.3 Camera is affixed. This unit is cont rolled remotely up to a distance of approximately 1200 meters but is never operated out of line of sight. The unit has an automatic return to launch feature if signal is lost. We will be using this quad
- copter for aerial inspections of houses in Airspace g but no higher that 200 feet above ground Please add this information to my previous petition submitted July23, 2015 (Docket No. FAA −2015−5173). Frederick Reid Accurate Home Inspections
#### § 352.14 Costs.

All costs incident to the inspection, handling, safeguarding, or other disposal of prohibited or restricted products or articles under the provisons in this part shall be borne by the owner. Services of the inspector during regularly assigned hours of duty at the usual places of duty shall be furnished without cost to the person requesting the services, unless a user fee is payable under § 354.3 of this chapter.

[56 FR 14844, Apr. 12, 1991]
§ 3550.210 Offsets. Any money that is or may become payable from the United States to an RHS borrower may be subject to administrative, salary, or Internal Revenue Service (IRS) offsets for the collection of a debt owed to RHS. ( a ) *IRS offset.* RHS may take action to effect offset of claims due RHS against tax refunds due to RHS debtors under 31 U.S.C. 3720a and 31 CFR 285.2.
( b ) *Salary offset.* Offset of claims due to RHS may be collected pursuant to the salary offset provisions in 7 CFR part 3, subpart C for a federal employee or other persons covered in that subpart.
( c ) *Administrative offset.* RHS may take action to effect administrative offset to recover delinquent claims due to it in accordance with the procedures in 7 CFR part 3, subpart B.
( d ) *Offset by other federal agencies.* Escrow funds and loan and grant funds held or payable by RHS are not subject to offset by other federal agencies.
[61 FR 59779, Nov. 22, 1996, as amended at 67 FR 69672, Nov. 19, 2002]