alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exemption# 11575

Docket# FAA

- 2015

- 0353

Re: Request to fly non

- towered airport in Section C (2) (b) (c) (d) (Flight Planning Requirements) under

FAA Form 7711

- 1 page 5 without letter of agreement

The approval letter (page 5, Section 16) states as follows:

“Letter of agreement with the airport’s management is obtained or otherwise permitted by a COA.”

Section C (2) (b) (c) (d) under FAA Form 7711

- 1 page 5 as follows:

b) 3 NM from an airport having a published instrument flight procedure, but not having an o perational control tower; or c) 2 NM from an airport not having a published instrument flight procedure or an operational control
tower; or d) 2 NM from a heliport, gliderport or seaport

Facts: These airport managers do not actually own /control airspace 2 or 3 nm from airport. Therefore, they do not have authority to approve or not approve the use of such areas. Ikust LLC have contacted several airport managers, but they are not cooperative.

Action taken: Ikust LLC requested a COA to use the area s defined in Section C (2) (b) (c) (d). However, senior ATC analyst (COA office) stated that the request cannot be processed through a COA. Therefore, Ikust LLC is submitting the request here.

Request: Ikust LLC to perform one of the followings in order to fly th e area s in Section C (2) (b) (c) (d). (1) NOTIFIES the airports in Section C (2) (b) (c) (d) for the operations of drone instead of obtaining LETTER of AGREEMENT, or (2) Notify and coordinate with nearest ATC for the drone operations. Other requirements, such as f iling NOTAM, stays the same.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

 VS CASE NO. 4:96-CR-69-02 RLH 

 DANIEL D. WHEELIS

FINANCIAL REFERRAL AND ORDER

Regarding release of funds for: Fine, X Restitution, Filing Fee, Attorney Admission Fee,

 Copy Fee, Bond, Other (Specify) 

By: Daniel D. Wheelis #10559-017 (Payee)

Address: USP Leavenworth

PO Box 1000

Leavenworth, KS 66048

Receipt Numbers 802 107149-05 Date of Receipts 04/12/05 

Explanation: On June 1, 2005, an order was issued (document 210) to refund the $25.00 overpayment by

Daniel Wheelis, received from the March 2005 Bureau of Prisons (BOP) report, to be refunded to Pamela

Warner. The prison in Leavenworth, KS just called and said that Mr. Wheelis was sentenced in the

Eastern District of Arkansas on June 23, 2004, to pay a special assessment and restitution. They informed

me that they had coded his payments to be sent to the North District of Florida instead of the Eastern

District of Arkansas. They also said that they just held out $25.00 for the June 2005 BOP report which we

will receive in July. 

The prison requested that the $25.00 from the March 2005 BOP report, as well as the $25.00 from the June

2005 BOP report be sent to the Eastern District of Arkansas.

Requesting authorization to send the funds to Eastern District of Arkansas instead of Pamela Warner.

WILLIAM M. McCOOL, Clerk of Court

Prepared by: ____s/Philip Detweiler___________

 Philip Detweiler, Financial Specialist Date: June 17, 2005 

ORDER OF COURT

It is ORDERED this 16th day of June, 2005, that the Clerk refund the identified funds to the Eastern

District of Arkansas.

APPROVED_______X_______

DENIED_________________

s/Robert L. Hinkle 

Chief United States District Judge 

Adopted: 12/03/99

Case 4:96-cr-00069-RH Document 211 Filed 06/16/05 Page 1 of 1
#### § 3570.64 Applications determined ineligible.

If, at any time, an application is determined ineligible, the processing office will notify the applicant in writing of the reasons. The applicant will be advised that it may appeal the decision. (See 7 CFR part 11.)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

vs. CASE NO.: 4:03cr63-SPM

ALEXIS E. ALCANTARA,

Defendant

______________________________/

ORDER CANCELLING REVOCATION HEARING

The Court has been advised that Defendant agreed to a modification of

the conditions of his supervised release. Accordingly, there is no need to

conduct a revocation hearing. The revocation hearing scheduled for 1:30 p.m.

on April 23, 2007 at the United States Courthouse in Tallahassee, Florida is

cancelled.

SO ORDERED this 20th day of April, 2007.

 s/ Stephan P. Mickle 

Stephan P. Mickle

United States District Judge

Case 4:03-cr-00063-SPM-WCS Document 58 Filed 04/20/07 Page 1 of 1
#### § 29.9251 Fees and charges.

Fees and charges for inspection and certification services shall comprise the cost of salaries, travel, per diem, and related expenses to cover the costs of performing the service. Fees shall be for actual time required to render the service calculated to the nearest 30-minute period. The hourly rate shall be $47.40. The overtime rate for service performed outside the inspector's regularly scheduled tour of duty shall be $53.70. The rate of $64.45 shall be charged for work performed on Sundays and holidays.

[56 FR 41922, Aug. 26, 1991, as amended at 66 FR 28361, May 23, 2001]
§ 42.135 Normal, tightened or reduced on-line inspection. ( a ) Normal, tightened and reduced on-line sampling plans are specified in § 42.132 (Determining cumulative sum values). Normal plans shall be used except when the history of inspection permits reduced inspection or requires tightened inspection.
( b ) Switching rules: Normal on-line inspection procedures shall be followed except when conditions in paragraph (b) (1) or (3) of this section are applicable or unless otherwise specified. Application of the following switching rules will be restricted to the inspection of production for one applicant at a single production location and will be based upon records of original inspections of production (excluding resubmitted portions previously rejected and reworked) at that same location. ( 1 ) *Normal inspection to reduced inspection.* When normal inspection is in effect, reduced inspection shall be instituted provided that reduced inspection is considered desirable by the Administrator and further provided that all of the following conditions are satisfied for each class of defect: ( i ) The preceding 40 consecutive portions of production have been on normal inspection and no more than one of these portions has been rejected on original inspection; and
( ii ) The total number of defects in the subgroups (1000 sample units) from these preceding 40 consecutive portions of production is less than or equal to the following limit numbers for the specified AQL's: Acceptable quality levels
Limit No. 0.25
0 1.5
9 6.5
54
( 2 ) *Reduced inspection to normal inspection.* When reduced inspection is in effect, normal inspection shall be reinstituted if any of the following occurs: ( i ) More than one portion of production in any 40 consecutive portions of production is rejected on original inspection; or
( ii ) Production becomes irregular (delayed or accelerated); or
( iii ) Other valid conditions warrant that normal inspection shall be reinstituted.
( 3 ) *Normal inspection to tightened inspection.* When normal inspection is in effect, tightened inspection shall be instituted when two out of five consecutive portions of production have been rejected.
( 4 ) *Tightened inspection to normal inspection.* When tightened inspection is in effect, normal inspection shall be reinstituted when five consecutive portions of production have been considered acceptable.
( c ) When the rules require a switch in the inspection status because of one or more classes of defects, all classes of defects shall be inspected under the new inspection criteria. At the option of the user of the service, and when approved by the Administrator, such user may elect to remain on normal inspection when qualified for reduced inspection, or on tightened inspection when qualified for normal inspection.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-28-1996
<CASH>                                       8,338,063
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,619,104
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  4,767,646
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            19,294,610
<PP&E>                                     177,486,598
<DEPRECIATION>                              79,487,328
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             122,522,611
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       25,892,269
<BONDS>                                     11,400,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       579,087
<OTHER-SE>                                  52,022,135
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               122,522,611
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            49,391,217<F1>
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               20,913,759<F2>
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            21,430,012
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             674,776
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              5,705,309
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,819,035
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 3,886,274
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .67
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .67
<FN>
<F1>
Revenues include the sale of tangible products, resort services and rental
and other income.  Revenues are dissaggregated for annual report and
10-K only.
<F2>
Cost of Goods are dissaggregated for annual report and 10-K only.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
8\\AMPACTM 

r(JJHALOTRON - -----------------

Mr. Kenneth Moss 

U.S. EPA 

August 27, 2015 

Submitted via CDX and FedEx 

Team Leader, New Chemicals Program 

Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics 

WJC EPA East Building, Room 4133C 

120 1 Constitution Ave NW 

Mail Code 7405M 

Washington, D.C. 20460 

RE: Case# P-14-0260- 2-bromo-3,3,3-trifluoropropene- Additional Exposure 

Monitoring at Amerex [Contains CBIJ 

Dear Mr. Moss: 

This letter is a follow-up to the last discussions we have had related to anticipated worker 

exposure related to filling of fire extinguishers with the PMN substance. Your team had 

suggested generating new data. We therefore worked closely with Amerex to complete 

additional monitoring. This work was completed on the active Halotron I filling line at 

their Alabama plant. As discussed in prior monitoring reports, the Halotron I compound 

may be used as a conservative substitute for the PMN substance, with expected levels of 

the PMN substance being lower based on differences in physical properties. 

On the first 2015 visit to Amerex to gather more data, there was a realization that the 

existing fill booth was in fact equipped with a fan that ventilated vapors from the booth to 

the exterior of the building. Therefore, the data for the Amerex facility contained in the 

November 27, 2013 report, entitled Industrial Hygiene Monitoring Investigation & 

Occupational Exposure Assessment of 2-bromo-3,3,3-trifluoropropene, was with this fan 

operating. The monitoring at Amerex that was conducted on May 1 and 2, 2013 was 

completed with 11 Lb extinguishers. For the report we are submitting, all monitoring 

data was completed with 5 Lb extinguishers, which are more representative of the 3.75 

Halotron Division 

3883 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 700 • Las Vegas, Nevada 89169 

Tel: +1 (702) 735·2200 • Fax: +1 (702) 735·4876 

www.halot ron.com 
Mr. Kenneth Moss 

August 27, 2015 

Page2 

BAC/bc 

Research Engineer, Halotron Division 

Enc. Industrial Hygiene Assessment Report, Ferguson Risk Management, with July 20 

and August 11, 2015 Assessment Dates 

cc: Jeff Gibson, AMPAC-Halotron, Vice President 

Bella Maranion, EPA SNAP 

Margaret Sheppard, EPA SNAP 

Rebecca VonDemi-Iagen, EPA SNAP 

8\\AMPACTM rcy HALOTRON
P.1 

RCRA Box 321 

Prepped by Ryan Dugan 

Document Number: 

230) OGRC-S0024 

Docket Number: 

F-93-OGRC-FFFFF 

Printed 5/8/2007 3:36:32 PM Sheet 230 of 259 
P.2 

» * OG-RC' 5QOZXH 

RAILROAD COMMISSION OF TEXAS 

OIL AND GAS DIVISION 

KENT HANCE, Chairman 

JOHN SHARP, CommiMioner 

JAMES E. (JIM) NUGENT, CommiMioner 

4^f$iA JIM MORROW, P.E. 

Director 

JAMES W. WALKER, JR. 

Director,-

Production Allocation 

(512 ) 463-6838 

1701 N. CONGRESS CAPITOL STATION — P. O. DRAWER 12967 AUSTIN. TEXAS 78711-2967 

January 3, 1990 

Odessa Reclamation No. 1 

P.O. Box 2230 

Midland, TX 79702 

RE: Annual Renewal of Reclamation Plant 

Permit issued pursuant to Oil & Gas 

Docket No. 7B,7C,8,8A-92,615 effective 

January 23, 1989. RECEIVED 

R.R.C. OF TEXAS 

Gentlemen: JAN 0 5 1990 

Based upon your written request and by approval of the Commission's fi=Sld 

Operations personnel you are hereby granted renewal of the refereTTtrelrcper£m'£§ 

for a period of one (1) year, subject to the provisions and conditions set 

out in the prior order. 

Please attach this renewal to your original referenced permit in order to 

make available to Commission personnel as required or requested. One month 

prior to the expiration date of this renewal, you are required to notify this 

office by letter whether you wish to renew again or cancel the permit. 

If you should have any questions regarding this matter please contact Terry 

Harris at 512-463-6874. 

WJG/th 

Yours truly, 

Id. " ^ 

William J. Gallagher*} Administrator 

Audit and Permits 

cc: RRC District- 7B,7C^8A 

Rex King, Field Operations 

file 

Southwest Energy Consultants, Inc. 

PERMIT EXPIRATION DATE: January 23, 1991 

An Equal Opportunity Employer
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 3.2E

                              TRANSMONTAIGNE INC.

                 Resolutions Adopted by the Board of Directors
                              September 29, 1999


I.   Effective October 1, 1999, Section 4.1 of Article 4 of the By-laws of the
Corporation shall be amended and restated in its entirety to read as follows:

          Section 4.1    The Corporation shall have such officers with such
     titles and directors, as the Board of the Directors may determine. The
     officers of the Corporation may include a Chairman of the Board, a Vice
     Chairman of the Board, a President, one or more Executive Vice Presidents,
     one or more Senior Vice Presidents, one or more Vice Presidents, a
     Secretary, a Treasurer and such other officers as may be appointed in
     accordance with the provisions of Section 4.3. Any person may hold two or
     more of such offices.

II.  Effective October 1, 1999, Article 4 of the By-laws of the Corporation
shall be amended by adding thereto a new Section 4.8 which shall read as set
forth below, and all subsequent Sections of Article 4 shall be renumbered
accordingly:

          Section 4.8    The Vice Chairman of the Board

          The Vice Chairman of the Board, if such officer has been appointed by
     the Board of Directors shall be the chief executive officer of the
     Corporation. In the absence of the Chairman of the Board, or if such office
     is vacant, he shall preside at all meetings of the stockholders and of the
     Directors, and shall exercise all other powers and perform all other duties
     of the Chairman of the Board; he shall be ex officio a member of all
     standing committees; and he shall perform such other duties as the Board of
     Directors may from time to time prescribe. Except where by law the
     signature of the President is required, the Vice Chairman of the Board
     shall have the same powers as the President to execute instruments on
     behalf of the Corporation.

III. Effective October 1, 1999, Section 4.8 of Article 4 of the By-laws of the
Corporation, renumbered as Section 4.9, shall be amended and restated in its
entirety to read as follows:

          Section 4.9    The President

          The President shall be the chief operating officer of the Corporation.
     In the absence of the Chairman of the Board and the Vice Chairman of the
     Board, or if such offices are vacant, he shall preside at all meetings of
     the stockholders and of
<PAGE>

     the Directors, and shall exercise all other powers and perform all other
     duties of the Chairman of the Board and Vice Chairman of the Board; he
     shall be ex officio a member of all standing committees; and he shall
     perform such other duties as the Board of Directors may from time to time
     prescribe.

IV.  Pursuant to Section 3.1 of Article 3 of the By-laws of the Corporation, the
number of directors shall be increased from eight (8) to a total of nine (9),
effective October 1, 1999.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

FAA Case No. 2010NM010105 

In the Matters of: FDMS No. FAA-2011-0682 

Aviation Technical Services, Inc. 

Honorable Richard C. Goodwin 

Declaration 

. (Confidential Order) 

I have read the administrative law judge's Order of October 18, 2012, sealing the exhibits and 

tnmscript in the above proceeding. I understand that the Initial Decision in this case is 

subject to the same restrictions. 

Per paragraph 4 of the October 18, 2012 Order, I agree to be bound and al:>ide by its tenus. 

Principal Maintenance Inspector 

RECEIVED 

MAY 2 9 2013 

HEARING uOCKET 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certifY that the foregoing Declaration has been served via facsimile and regular mail 

this date, to the following: 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin 

Office of Hearings, M-20 · 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

East Building Ground Floor, Rm E12-320 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

TEL: (202) 366-2139 

FAX: (202) 366-7536 

Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building~ Suite 2Wl 000 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Ave. SW. 

Washington, DC 20591 

FAX: (202) 493-5142 

DATED this 21st day of May, 2013. 

I' Kti(.tt~ tJf·{uL 

,- :' 

;vr Dana Stephenson 

Office of Regional Cotinsel (ANM-7) 

Federal Aviation Administration· 

1601 Lind Ave. SW 

Renton, W A 98057 

(425)227-2164.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 225 (Tuesday, November 23, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 71454]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-29462]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[LLCAD01000 L12200000.AL 0000]


Meeting of the California Desert District Advisory Council

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given, in accordance with Public Laws 92-463 
and 94-579, that the California Desert District Advisory Council to the 
Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior, will 
participate in a field tour of BLM-administered public lands on Friday, 
December 10, 2010, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. and will meet in formal 
session on Saturday, December 11, 2010, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. at the 
Riverside Marriott, 3400 Market Street, Riverside, CA 92501.
    Agenda topics will include updates by Council members and reports 
from the BLM District Manager and five field office managers. Final 
agenda items, including details of the field tour, will be posted on 
the BLM California state Web site at http://www.blm.gov/ca/st/en/info/rac/dac.html.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: All Desert District Advisory Council 
meetings are open to the public. Public comment for items not on the 
agenda will be scheduled at the beginning of the meeting Saturday 
morning. Time for public comment may be made available by the Council 
Chairman during the presentation of various agenda items, and is 
scheduled at the end of the meeting for topics not on the agenda.
    While the Saturday meeting is tentatively scheduled from 8 a.m. to 
5 p.m., the meeting could conclude prior to 5 p.m. should the Council 
conclude its presentations and discussions. Therefore, members of the 
public interested in a particular agenda item or discussion should 
schedule their arrival accordingly.
    Written comments may be filed in advance of the meeting for the 
California Desert District Advisory Council, c/o Bureau of Land 
Management, External Affairs, 22835 Calle San Juan de Los Lagos, Moreno 
Valley, CA 92553. Written comments also are accepted at the time of the 
meeting and, if copies are provided to the recorder, will be 
incorporated into the minutes.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Briery, BLM California Desert 
District External Affairs (951) 697-5220.

    Dated: November 8, 2010.
Teresa A. Raml,
District Manager.
[FR Doc. 2010-29462 Filed 11-22-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-40-P
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

GARRETT A. ARROWOOD,

Petitioner,

v. Case No.: 4:20cv151-MW/MJF

RICKY D. DIXON,

Respondent.

_________________________/

ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This Court has considered, without hearing, the Magistrate Judge's Report and 

Recommendation, ECF No. 21, and has also reviewed de novo Petitioner’s

objections, ECF No. 22.

1 Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED:

1 Petitioner objects, in part, to the fact that the asserted Crawford violation underpinning 

his Strickland claim in Ground 1 is never addressed head on in the state-court decisions or in the 

Report and Recommendation. In his briefing on the habeas petition, Petitioner asserts his state trial 

counsel’s decision to elicit certain hearsay is a Crawford violation on its face and per se 

unreasonable. However, the issue of whether defense counsel can elicit hearsay that is otherwise 

inadmissible pursuant to Crawford is more nuanced than Petitioner frames it. Without question, 

defense counsel may waive their client’s right of confrontation and elicit such testimony that would 

otherwise be inadmissible pursuant to Crawford absent dissent from the defendant. See Janosky v. 

St. Amand, 594 F.3d 39, 48 (1st Cir. 2010) (listing cases noting that counsel may waive client’s 

right of confrontation absent dissent from the defendant). Here, it appears Petitioner’s focus at the 

trial level and before this Court was the reasonableness of trial counsel’s strategy in eliciting such 

testimony, but Petitioner has presented no evidence or argument as to whether Petitioner validly 

waived his right of confrontation at trial when his counsel elicited the co-defendant’s hearsay.

Case 4:20-cv-00151-MW-MJF Document 23 Filed 06/07/22 Page 1 of 2
2

The report and recommendation, ECF No. 21, is accepted and adopted, over 

the Petitioner’s objections, as this Court’s opinion. The Clerk shall enter judgment 

stating, “Petitioner’s amended petition for writ of habeas corpus, ECF No. 7, is 

DENIED.” A certificate of appealability is DENIED. The Clerk shall close the file. 

SO ORDERED on June 7, 2022.

s/Mark E. Walker ____

Chief United States District Judge

Case 4:20-cv-00151-MW-MJF Document 23 Filed 06/07/22 Page 2 of 2
Order entered June 19, 2018

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-18-00472-CV

TODD DYER, ET AL., Appellants

V.

MEDOC HEALTH SERVICES, LLC, ET AL., Appellees

On Appeal from the 14th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-18-00822

ORDER

Before the Court is appellees’ June 18, 2018 unopposed motion for an extension of time 

to file a brief. We GRANT the motion and extend the time to July 20, 2018.

/s/ DAVID EVANS 

JUSTICE