alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Bi-Economy Market, Inc., Appellant, v Harleysville Insurance Company of New York et al., Respondents.

Submitted July 9, 2007;

decided September 6, 2007

Reported below, 37 AD3d 1184.

Motion by United Policyholders for leave to file a brief amicus curiae on the appeal herein granted. Two copies of the brief must be served and 24 copies filed within seven days.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Christopher SANDS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 07-60048

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Sept. 4, 2007.

*860Jerry L. Rushing, U.S. Attorney’s Office Southern District of Mississippi, Jackson, MS, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

John William Weber, III, U.S. District Court Southern District of Mississippi, Gulfport, MS, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before REAVLEY, SMITH and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Christopher Sands was convicted by a jury of being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) and was sentenced to 120 months of imprisonment. He challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction. This court reviews his sufficiency challenge to see whether a reasonable trier of fact could have found that the evidence established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Government, giving the Government the benefit of all reasonable inferences and credibility choices. *See United States v. Bell,*678 F.2d 547, 549 (5th Cir.1982) (en banc); *see also United States v. Inocencio,*40 F.3d 716, 724 (5th Cir.1994).

Sands does not challenge the Government’s proof on any of the elements of the offense; instead, he contends that the evidence establishes that he was forced to handle a gun to defend himself and that he therefore cannot be guilty as a matter of law. The defense of justification was presented to the jury and included in the court’s jury instructions. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, the evidence was sufficient to support a finding of guilt and a rejection of the theory of justification. Specifically, reasonable jurors could rationally conclude that Sands did not possess the gun in self defense because there was no imminent danger of harm and/or because he placed himself in danger based on eyewitness testimony that the victim did not have a gun prior to or after the shooting; eyewitness testimony that only one or two shots were fired, and two bullets were recovered from the victim’s body; the fact that no gun other than Sands’ was discovered at the *861crime scene; the fact that the .32 caliber gun Sands’ mother surrendered to police three days after the event, which gun was purportedly the victim’s, did not match the .34 caliber spent casing officers recovered from the scene; and Sands’ own admission to investigating officers immediately following the incident that he was the first to pull a gun, not the victim.

The essence of Sands’ argument on appeal is that the jury should have accepted his version of events, which established all of the required elements of the justification defense. However, this court will not reweigh the evidence or second-guess the jury’s credibility determinations. *United States v. Matties,*151 F.3d 251, 252 (5th Cir.1998).

The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

*

 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.
BEFORE THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, DC

IN THE MATTER OF MESA AIRLINES, INC. FAA DOCKET NO. CP09AL0011 (Civil Penalty case) DMS F AA-2009-0972
WITHDRAWAL OF COMPLAINT 

# RECEIVED JUN 

## 2 6 2013 

## HEARING DOCKET

The parties have settled this matter pursuant to section 502 ofthe Bankruptcy Code, and Rule 9019(a) ofthe Federal Rules ofBankruptcyProcedure in the United States Bankruptcy Court Southern District ofNew York. (Case No. 10-10018(MG)). Therefore, the complaint filed in this matter on October 13, 2009, is hereby withdrawn.
Respectfully submitted, Peter J. Lynch Assistant ChiefCounsel
By:**A--~~n~·~in~g~ham~-----------------** Attomey, Enforcement Division/AGC-300 Office ofthe ChiefCounsel Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Ave., SW Washington, DC 20591 Telephone: (202) 267-7268 Facsimile: (202) 267-5106CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify onthis date I delivered in person the original and one copy ofthe Withdrawal of Complaint In the Matter of MesaAirlines, Inc., FAA Docket No. CP9ALOOll (Civil Penalty case), DMS-2009-0972 addressed to: Federal Aviation Administration 600 Independence Avenue, SW Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2WIOOO Washington, DC 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 In addition, I hereby certify that on this date I have sent via certified mail a copy ofthe Withdrawal ofComplaintIn the Matter of MesaAirlines, Inc., FAA Docket No. CP9ALOO 11 (Civil Penalty case), DMS FAA-2009-0972 addressed to: Christopher Pappaioanou Vice President, Legal Affairs Mesa Air Group 410 N. 44th Street, Suite I00 Phoenix, AZ 85008 Honorable Richard C. Goodwin Administrative LawJudge Office ofHearings, M-20 Department ofTransportation 1200 NewJersey Avenue, S.E. East Building Ground Floor, Room El2-320 Washington, DC 20590
June

### 2(~013
Exhibit 33.4**[****JPMORGAN CHASE LOGO****]****Management’s Report on Assessment of Compliance with Applicable Servicing Criteria**     JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association (the “Asserting Party”) is responsible for assessingcompliance as of October 1, 2006 and for the period from October 1, 2006 through December 31, 2006(the “Reporting Period”), with the servicing criteria set forth in Title 17, Section 229.1122 (d)of the Code of Federal Regulations (the “CFR”), ”), to the extent required by the relatedtransaction agreements excluding the criteria set forth in 17 CFR 229.1122(d) (1)(i)-(iv),(2)(i)-(vi), (3)(i)-(iv), and (4)(i)-(xv), which the Asserting Party has concluded are notapplicable to the activities it performs with respect to the asset-backed securitizationtransactions covered by this report (such criteria, after giving effect to the exclusionsidentified above, the “Applicable Servicing Criteria”). This report covers the asset-backedsecurities transactions backed by residential mortgages and home equity loans, auto loans, creditcards, dealer floor plans, retail installment contracts and manufactured housing contracts forwhich transactions the Asserting Party performs the applicable servicing criteria, that wereregistered with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to the Securities Act of 1933, asamended, where the related asset-backed securities were either (1) issued during the calendar yearending December 31, 2006 or (2) issued prior to the calendar year ending December 31, 2006 andremain subject to the reporting requirements under the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, asamended (the “Platform”), as listed in Appendix A.     The Asserting Party has (i) used the criteria set forth in 17 CFR 229.1122(d) to assess thecompliance by the Asserting Party with the Applicable Servicing Criteria for the Reporting Periodand (ii) concluded that the Asserting Party has complied, in all material respects, with theApplicable Servicing Criteria as of December 31, 2006 and for the Reporting Period with respect tothe Platform, taken as a whole.     PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, an independent registered public accounting firm, has issued anattestation report for the Platform, on our assessment of compliance with the Applicable ServicingCriteria as of December 31, 2006 and for the Reporting Period as set forth in this report.JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association   /s/ Brian Goldman   Brian Goldman, Senior Vice President  Date: March 12, 2007  
 

 
**Appendix A**BA Master Credit Card Trust II
OAO 247 (02/08) Order Regarding Motion for Sentence Reduction

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

United States of America )

)

)

)

)

)

v.

Cory Fluellen Case No: 5:98-cr-36-SPM-1

USM No: 04436-017

Date of Previous Judgment: March 23, 2000 Matthew M. Robinson

(Use Date of Last Amended Judgment if Applicable) Defendant’s Attorney

Order Regarding Motion for Sentence Reduction Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)

Upon motion of 9 the defendant 9 the Director of the Bureau of Prisons : the court under 18 U.S.C.

§ 3582(c)(2) for a reduction in the term of imprisonment imposed based on a guideline sentencing range that has

subsequently been lowered and made retroactive by the United States Sentencing Commission pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 994(u), and having considered such motion,

IT IS ORDERED that the motion is:

9 DENIED. : GRANTED and the defendant’s previously imposed sentence of imprisonment (as reflected in 

the last judgment issued) of 360 months is reduced to 292 .

I. COURT DETERMINATION OF GUIDELINE RANGE (Prior to Any Departures)

Previous Offense Level: 40 Amended Offense Level: 38

Criminal History Category: III Criminal History Category: III

Previous Guideline Range: 360 to LIFE months Amended Guideline Range: 292 to 365 months

II. SENTENCE RELATIVE TO AMENDED GUIDELINE RANGE

: The reduced sentence is within the amended guideline range.

9 The previous term of imprisonment imposed was less than the guideline range applicable to the defendant at the time

of sentencing as a result of a departure or Rule 35 reduction, and the reduced sentence is comparably less than the

amended guideline range.

9 Other (explain):

III. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS

Except as provided above, all provisions of the judgment dated March 23, 2000 shall remain in effect.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Order Date: April 24, 2008 s/ Stephan P. Mickle

Judge’s signature

Effective Date: Stephan P. Mickle, United States District Judge

(if different from order date) Printed name and title

Case 5:98-cr-00036-RH Document 382 Filed 04/24/08 Page 1 of 1
### U.S. Department of Transportation, Advisory Committee for



### Aviation Consumer Protection Meeting

Posting consumer rights information at U.S. airports

Presenter: Laura McKee

Vice President, Airline Services

Airlines for America

December 16, 2013

## The U.S. Airlines Continue to Deliver Solid Results for Customers

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 YTD Sep

- 13

Flight Completion Factor

(% of scheduled domestic departures) 97.84 98.04 98.61 98.24 98.09 98.71 98.49

On

- Time Arrival Rate

(% of domestic flights within 00:15) 73.42 76.04 79.49 79.79 79.62 81.85 78.19

Mishandled Bags

(per 1,000 domestic passengers) 7.05 5.26 3.91 3.57 3.39 3.09 3.22

Involuntary Denied Boardings

(per 10,000 passengers) 1.12 1.10 1.19 1.09 0.82 0.99 0.92

Customer Complaints

(per 100,000 systemwide passengers) 1.37 1.13 0.97 1.20 1.18 1.42 1.20

Sources : NTSB, BTS and DOT Air Travel Consumer Report ( http://www.dot.gov/airconsumer/air

- travel

- consumer

- reports)

airlines.org

2

## Bag

- Handling Performance Continues to Improve Despite Rising Rate of Checked Bags

Complaints Lowest in Four Years

– Less Than 0.9 for Every 100,000 Customers DOT: “October Airline Service Improved from Previous Year in all Major Categories”

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7

2010 2011 2012 2013 October Checked Bags per Customer 1

2.52

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0

2010 2011 2012 2013 October Mishandled Bags per 1,000 Customers 2 October Complaints per 100,000 Customers 2

0.84

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2

2010 2011 2012 2013

1 Number of persons screened at U.S. airport checkpoints

2 Number of passengers enplaned on U.S. airlines in domestic service Sources : TSA and DOT Air Travel Consumer Report

airlines.org 3

## Fall Operations Remain Strong, with U.S. Airlines Completing More Than 99 Percent of Scheduled Flights and Arriving On Time at a Rate of 84

Percent

Flight Completion Rate (%) On

- Time Arrival Rate (%)

2012 2013 2012 2013

September 99.2 99.1 83.3 83.8

October 97.2 99.4 80.2 84.1

November 99.0 TBD 85.7 TBD



### December 98.4 TBD 76.6 TBD

Sources : DOT Air Travel Consumer Report DOT Air Travel Consumer Reports Hyperlink and masFlight

airlines.org 4

## Information is Readily Available on U.S. Airline Websites

Source: www.usairways.com

airlines.org 5

## Information is Readily Available on U.S. Airline Websites 2

Source: www.southwest.com

airlines.org 6

## Information is Readily Available on U.S. Airline Websites 3

Source: www.united.com

airlines.org 7

## Screen shot of US Department of Transportation Airline Service Complaints and Comments

8

## Screen shot of US Department of Transportation Air Travel Tips

9

## European Commission Poster Excerpt

Source: http ://ec.europa.eu/transport 10

## European Commission Leaflet Excerpt

Source: http ://ec.europa.eu/transport 11www.airlines.org

12
Exhibit 32.2 

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 of Atlas Resources Public #16-2007 (A) L.P. (the “Partnership”) on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2014 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Sean P. McGrath, Chief Financial Officer of the General Partner, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 

|   | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|--------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Partnership. |
|--------|-----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

|                                                |
|------------------------------------------------|
| /s/ SEAN P. MCGRATH                            |
| Sean P. McGrath                                |
| Chief Financial Officer of the General Partner |
| September 11, 2015                             |
Case 2:06-cr-00169-WKW-SRW     Document 559-4      Filed 02/11/2008     Page 1 of 2

Case 2:06-cr-00169-WKW-SRW     Document 559-4      Filed 02/11/2008     Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          210,195
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     2,509,474
<OTHER-SE>                                 (2,719,670)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                28,371
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (28,371)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (28,371)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (28,371)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.00)


</TABLE>
52.232-31 Invitation to Propose Financing

Terms.

As prescribed in 32.205 (b) and 32.206 , insert the following provision:

Invitation to Propose Financing Terms (Dec 2022)

(a) The offeror is invited to propose terms under which the Government shall make contract

financing payments during contract performance. The financing terms proposed by the offeror shall

be a factor in the evaluation of the offeror’s proposal. The financing terms of the successful offeror

and the clause, Terms for Financing of Purchases of Commercial Products and Commercial Services,

at Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 52.232-29, shall be incorporated in any resulting contract.

(b) The offeror agrees that in the event of any conflict between the terms proposed by the offeror

and the terms in the clause at FAR 52.232-29, Terms for Financing of Purchases of Commercial

Products and Commercial Services, the terms of the clause at FAR 52.232-29 shall govern.

(c) Because of statutory limitations (10 U.S.C. 3805 and 41 U.S.C.4505), the offeror’s proposed

financing shall not be acceptable if it does not conform to the following limitations:

(1) Delivery payments shall be made only for supplies delivered and accepted, or services rendered

and accepted in accordance with the payment terms of this contract;

(2) Contract financing payments shall not exceed 15 percent of the contract price in advance of any

performance of work under the contract;

(3) The terms and conditions of the contract financing must be appropriate or customary in the

commercial marketplace; and

(4) The terms and conditions of the contract financing must be in the best interests of the United

States.

(d) The offeror’s proposal of financing terms shall include the following:

(1) The proposed contractual language describing the contract financing (see FAR 32.202-2 for

appropriate definitions of types of payments); and

(2) A listing of the earliest date and greatest amount at which each contract financing payment may

be payable and the amount of each delivery payment. Any resulting contract shall provide that no

contract financing payment shall be made at any earlier date or in a greater amount than shown in

the offeror’s listing.

(e) The offeror’s proposed prices and financing terms shall be evaluated to determine the cost to the

United States of the proposal using the interest rate and delivery schedule specified elsewhere in

this solicitation.

(End of provision)

Parent topic: 52.232 [Reserved]
Exhibit 35
                                   ----------


                      COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING LP


                             OFFICERS' CERTIFICATE
                    ANNUAL STATEMENT OF THE MASTER SERVICER


                                  CWALT, INC.
                        ALTERNATIVE LOAN TRUST 2006-32CB
              MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-32CB


      The undersigned does hereby certify that the undersigned is an officer of
Countrywide GP, Inc., general partner of Countrywide Home Loans Servicing LP
(the "Master Servicer"), and does hereby further certify pursuant to Section
3.16 of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement for the above-captioned Series (the
"Agreement") that:

(i) A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the preceding
calendar year and of the performance of the Master Servicer under the Agreement
has been made under my supervision; and

(ii) To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer has
fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects
throughout such calendar year.




/s/ Craig Baingo                                      Dated: March 14, 2007
-----------------

Craig Baingo
Executive Vice President, Finance
§ 755.8 Calculation of individual payments. ( a ) Transportation cost for each commodity or input will be calculated by multiplying the number of reported eligible units (the reported transportation amount) times the fixed, set, or actual transportation rate, as applicable.
( b ) Eligible reimbursement amounts will be calculated by multiplying the result of paragraph (a) of this section times the appropriate FY COLA percentage, as provided in this part.
( c ) If transported inputs are used for both eligible and ineligible commodities, the eligible reimbursable costs will be determined on a revenue share of eligible commodities times input cost, as determined by FSA, and transportation may be allowed only for those commodities which were produced for the commercial market.
( d ) The total payment amount for a producer is the sum of all eligible reimbursable amounts determined in paragraph (b) of this section for all commodities and inputs used to produce the eligible commodities listed on the application.
( e ) Payment amounts are subject to $8,000 cap per FY per producer as defined in this part, not per “person” or “legal entity” as those terms might be defined in part 1400 of this title.
( f ) In the event that approval of all calculated payment amounts would result in expenditures in excess of the amount available, FSA will recalculate the payment amounts in a manner that FSA determines to be fair and reasonable.
§ 760.303 Eligible livestock producer. ( a ) To be considered an eligible livestock producer, the eligible producer on a farm must: ( 1 ) During the 60 days prior to the beginning date of a qualifying drought or fire, own, cash or share lease, or be a contract grower of covered livestock or
( 2 ) Provide pastureland or grazing land for covered livestock, including cash-leased pastureland or grazing land, that is: ( i ) Physically located in a county affected by a qualifying drought during the normal grazing period for the county or
( ii ) Rangeland managed by a Federal agency for which the otherwise eligible livestock producer is prohibited by the Federal agency from grazing the normal permitted livestock due to a qualifying fire.
( b ) The eligible livestock producer must have certified that the livestock producer has suffered a grazing loss due to a qualifying drought or fire to be eligible for LFP payments.
( c ) An eligible livestock producer does not include any owner, cash or share lessee, or contract grower of livestock that rents or leases pastureland or grazing land owned by another person on a rate-of-gain basis. (That is, where the lease or rental agreement calls for payment based in whole or in part on the amount of weight gained by the animals that use the pastureland or grazing land.)
( d ) A producer seeking payment must not be ineligible for payments under the restrictions applicable to foreign persons contained in § 760.103(b) and must meet all other requirements of subpart B and other applicable USDA regulations.
( e ) If a contract grower is an eligible livestock producer for covered livestock, the owner of that livestock is not eligible for payment.