alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
oneworld Alliance 

'-; 

oneworld Management Company Inc 

2 Park Avenue Suite 1100 

New York NY 10016 USA 

+1 212 716 0500 Fax +1 212 251 6870 

info@oneworld.com www.oneworld.com 

Samuel Podberesky 

~··~ i l 

;j· :._.;··~ 

Assistant General Counsel for Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

9 May, 2013 

Re: Your letter dated 23 April (Re: Oneworld Displays of Air Carrier Surcharges and Ta>:es) 

Dear Mr. Podberesky: 

Please find below ou · answers to the questions posed in your letter referenced above. 

(1) Why did the oMC R ;·w booking engine fail to display properly the distinction bet.,reen taxes 

and government fees on the one hand and carrier-imposed surcharges on the other and over 

what period of timE. did this failure occur? 

The D.O.T.'s Additional Guidance on Airfare/Air Tour Price Advertisements did not come to the 

attention of oMC until we were contacted by member carrier Cathay Pacific Airways on 7 February, 

2013. Changes to the RTW booking engine were made as quickly as possible following that, with full 

effect as of 18 February. 

(2) According to the Cathay response, oMC revised its displays to note accurately the taxessurcharge distinction. Please confirm that the site now properly displays an accurate 

breakdown of additional charges which distinguishes between taxes and government fees, on 

the one hand, and carrier-imposed surcharges, on the other, for all its members. 

We confirm that the site now properly displays an accurate breakdown of additional charges which 

distinguishes between taxes and government fees, on the one hand, and carrier-imposed surcharges, 

on the other, for all oneworld members. 

(3) In order to determine whether oMC is a ticket agent within the scope of 49 U.S.C. § 

~oirberlin 

401 02(a)(45), we request that you describe how oMC derives its revenue. Does oMC sell air 

transportation through its website or is the actual sale made through a website of a member 

carrier? 

oMC does not sell air transportation through its website, the actual sale is made through the 

reservation centers of member carriers. 

American Airlines'"\. 

- ~.- ·~ 

BRITISH AIRWAYS .-- ~CATHAY PACIFIC FINNRIR 

JAPAN AIRLINES LAN ~QANTAS 

- ~ AlRUNES 
Does oMC get a percentage of RTW sales or is there flat membership fee annually for each 

member, regardless of size and amount of sales generated or is there some other basis for 

compensation? 

oMC is not compensated in sny way for RTW sal 

I I i . 

If you need any further information, please do not hesitate to contact us. 

Best regards, 

(~"-~t~,~:·L--:c \"-·\ L\.c~- .. ---/-_ 

Stephen M. Usery / --.....,_"-' 

Vice President - Commercial · 

2
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, *

*

*

v. * CASE NO. 2:0600198-WKW-CSC-1

*

RONALD MCQUEEN *

NOTICE OF INTENT TO CHANGE PLEA

Comes now the Defendant, Ronald McQueen, by and through undersigned counsel, Susan

G. James, and notifies the Court of his intent to change his previously entered plea of not guilty to

guilty. Defendant waives his right to plead in front of a district judge and consents to do so

before a magistrate judge.

Respectfully submitted,

s/Susan G. James

SUSAN G. JAMES

Attorney at Law

600 South McDonough Street

Montgomery, Alabama 36104

Phone: (334) 269-3330

Fax: (334) 834-0353

E-mail: sgjamesandassoc@aol.com

Bar No: JAM012

Case 2:06-cr-00198-WKW-CSC Document 39 Filed 12/21/2006 Page 1 of 3
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on December 21, 2006, I electronically filed the foregoing with the

Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the

following: 

Tommie Hardwick

United States Attorney

P.O. Box 197

Montgomery, Alabama, 36101

Respectfully submitted,

s/Susan G. James

SUSAN G. JAMES

Attorney at Law

600 South McDonough Street

Montgomery, Alabama 36104

Phone: (334) 269-3330

Fax: (334) 834-0353

E-mail: sgjamesandassoc@aol.com

Bar No: JAM012

Case 2:06-cr-00198-WKW-CSC Document 39 Filed 12/21/2006 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:06-cr-00198-WKW-CSC Document 39 Filed 12/21/2006 Page 3 of 3
Exhibit 23.3

[LETTERHEAD OF SCOTT E. WILSON CONSULTING, INC.]

CONSENT OF SCOTT E. WILSON CONSULTING, INC.

The undersigned, Scott E. Wilson Consulting, Inc., hereby states as follows:

Our firm prepared an independent technical report, completed in 2008 (the Technical Report), concerning the Hycroft Brimstone Open Pit Mine
of Allied Nevada Gold Corp. (the Company), portions of which are summarized under the caption Part I  Item 2. Properties  Development Properties  Hycroft Brimstone Open Pit Mine in this Annual Report on
Form 10-K of the Company (the Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2008, to be filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission.

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (No. 333-144102 and No. 333-156249) of the Company of the summary information concerning the Technical Report, including
the reference to our firm included with such information, as set forth above in the Form 10-K.



Scott E. Wilson Consulting, Inc.By:

/s/    Scott E. WilsonName: Scott E. Wilson, C.P.G.Title: President


Date: March 16, 2009
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION

File Name: 09a0316n.06

Filed: May 4, 2009

No. 07-4420

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

STEVEN G. CAMPBELL,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED

STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

BEFORE: MERRITT, COOK, and WHITE, Circuit Judges

MERRITT, Circuit Judge. In this direct criminal appeal, the defendant has already served

a short sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm and was actually released from custody

on February 14, 2008. He then filed a brief nine months later on November 7, 2008, and requested

oral argument on a claim that the District Court erred in failing to allow him to withdraw his guilty

plea; and finally, without notice to the court, his counsel failed to appear at his requested oral

argument on the appointed oral argument date of April 28, 2009. The defendant’s claim is both

frivolous and incoherent. He does not actually claim he is not guilty. But he seeks to set aside his

guilty plea which would result in a trial in this criminal case in which he has already served his

sentence of confinement.
No. 07-4420

United States v. Campbell

-2-

Accordingly, upon an independent review of the case and finding no error in the proceeding

or rulings in the District Court, and concluding that no substantial issue is presented on appeal, we

affirm the judgment of the District Court.
#### § 996.7 Importer.

*Importer* means a person who engages in the importation of foreign produced peanuts into the United States.

[68 FR 1157, Jan. 9, 2003]
1646.301 Contractor inspection requirements.       The clause set forth at 1652.246–70 shall be inserted in all FEHBP contracts.    **Parent topic:** Subpart 1646.3—Contract Clauses
*

 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. This court

generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order

and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

** After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this three-judge

panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not be of material

assistance in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th

Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

F I L E D

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

APR 2 2003

PATRICK FISHER

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

GEORGE DON GALLOWAY, also

known as Saul D. Davis,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent - Appellee.

No. 01-4191

(D.C. No. 01-CV-383-S)

(D. Utah)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before KELLY, BRISCOE, and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.**

On November 1, 2000, the Sentencing Commission adopted Amendment

591 to the Sentencing Guidelines, which in pertinent part amends certain

guidelines to provide “that the sentencing court must apply the offense guideline

referenced in the Statutory Index for the statute of conviction.” United States
- 2 -

Sentencing Comm’n, Guidelines Manual Supplement to Appendix C at 31 (2002);

U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(c) (Amendment 591 may be applied retroactively). Mr.

Galloway then moved to modify his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). He

claimed that although his offense of conviction was kidnapping (U.S.S.G.

§ 2A4.1), he was actually sentenced under the guideline applicable to sexual

abuse (U.S.S.G. § 2A3.1), resulting in a higher offense level. The district court

denied the motion on the merits, concluding that Amendment 591 could not be

retroactively applied to Mr. Galloway’s sentence because it did not apply. R.

Docs. 6, 11. We conclude that we have jurisdiction over the district court’s

August 28, 2001 order, R. Doc. 11, and we review its determination de novo. See

United States v. Smartt, 129 F.3d 539, 540 (10th Cir. 1997).

We agree with the district court. Appendix A plainly references U.S.S.G.

§ 2A4.1 for a kidnapping offense under 18 U.S.C. § 1201(a). As we discussed in

United States v. Galloway, 963 F.2d 1388, 1391 (10th Cir. 1992), § 2A4.1

required that where another offense had been committed, the guideline for that

other offense should be applied if it resulted in a higher offense level. That is

what occurred here–the district court applied U.S.S.G. § 2A3.1 for sexual abuse,

but only after being directed by § 2A4.1 to do so. Amendment 591 did not

eliminate the court’s responsibility to apply appropriate cross-references. See

U.S.S.G. § 1B1.1(b). This is not a situation where the district court exercised
- 3 -

discretion in selecting the appropriate guideline from Appendix A, an approach

somewhat restricted by Amendment 591.

AFFIRMED. We grant Mr. Galloway’s motion to proceed IFP.

Entered for the Court

Paul J. Kelly, Jr.

Circuit Judge
EXHIBIT 31.2 - CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
               PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(a)
I, Rod Lynam, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Gallery of
   History, Inc;

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 small
   business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The small business issuer's other certifying officer 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)) for the small
   business issuer and have:

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
   controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
   material information relating to the small business issuer, including its
   consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by  others within those
   entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
   prepared;

b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's disclosure
   controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about
   the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end
   of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer's internal
   internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small
   business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's
   fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially
   affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business
   issuer's internal control over financial reporting; and

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

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
   operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
   likely to adversely affect the small business issuer's ability to record,
   process, summarize and report financial information; and

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
   employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer's
   internal control over financial reporting.

   Date: February 14, 2008       /s/  ROD LYNAM_
                                 Rod Lynam
                                 Chief Financial Officer
§ 1044.01 What are the purpose and scope of this part? ( a ) *Purpose.* This part prescribes the security requirements for making protected disclosures of classified or unclassified controlled nuclear information under the whistleblower protection provisions of section 3164 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000.
( b ) *Scope.* The security requirements for making protected disclosures in this part are independent of, and not subject to any limitations that may be provided in, the Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989 (Public Law 101-12) or any other law that may provide protection for disclosures of information by employees of DOE or of a DOE contractor.
[66 FR 54645, Oct. 30, 2001]
3033.214 Alternative dispute resolution (ADR).       (c) The Administrative Dispute Resolution Act (ADRA) of 1996, as amended, 5 U.S.C. 571, *et seq.,* authorizes and encourages agencies to use mediation, conciliation, arbitration, and other techniques for the prompt and informal resolution of disputes, and for other purposes. CBCA guidance on ADR may be obtained at *http://www.gsbca.gsa.gov/CBCA-17712-v1-CBCA_ADR_INFORMATION.pdf* or from the CBCA upon request. ADR procedures may be used—          (1) When there is mutual consent by the parties to participate in the ADR process (with consent being obtained either before or after an issue in controversy has arisen);          (2) Prior to the submission of a claim; and          (3) In resolution of a formal claim.    **Parent topic:** Subpart 3033.2—Disputes and Appeals
#### DEL GENOVESE, Appellant, v. DEL GENOVESE, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

June 19, 1914.)

Action by Fidalma Del Genovese, as administratrix, etc., against Alfredo Del Genovese.

No opinion. Motion to resettle order granted. See, also, 149 App. Div. 266, 133 N. Y. Supp. 765; 148 N. Y. Supp. 1112.
##### 



RESTATED EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
between
INTEGRA BANK CORPORATION
and
ARCHIE M. BROWN, JR.
 (Effective May 22, 2007)




---



##### 



RESTATED EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
between
INTEGRA BANK CORPORATION
and
ARCHIE M. BROWN, JR.
  Recitals
    Agreement
  Effective Date.
 Term of Employment.
 Position and Responsibilities.




---



##### 



Standard of Care.
 Compensation and Benefits.
 Annual Base Salary
 Incentive Bonus.
 Equity Compensation.
  -2-




---



##### 



Employee Benefits.
 Automobile Allowance.
 Country Club Membership.
 Reimbursement of Business Expenses.
 Termination of Employment.
 Termination Due to Death.
 Termination Due to Disability.
  -3-




---



##### 



Termination by the Company Without Cause.
 Termination by the Company For Cause.
  -4-




---



##### 



Termination by the Company in Connection with a Change in Control
  -5-




---



##### 



.
 Termination by Executive For Good Reason
      -6-




---



##### 



-7-




---



##### 



;
  -8-




---



##### 



Termination By Executive Without Good Reason.
 Non-Renewal By Executive.
 Non-Renewal by the Company.
  -9-




---



##### 



Forfeiture of Compensation.
 Resignation as Officer and/or Director Upon Employment Termination.
 Definition of Change in Control
   -10-




---



##### 



-11-




---



##### 



Severance Release.
  -12-




---



##### 



Suspension of Payments Upon Termination.
 Non-Disclosure.
 Restrictive Covenants.
  -13-




---



##### 



Non-Competition.
 Non-Solicitation of Customers.
 Non-Interference With Customers.
 Non-Interference With Contractors and Vendors.
  -14-




---



##### 



Non-Solicitation of Employees
 Direct or Indirect Activities.
 Survival of Restrictive Covenants.
 Extension.
 Severability; Modification of Restrictions.
 Remedies.
  -15-




---



##### 



No Additional Payment to Account for Excise Taxes
 Assignment.
 Assignment by Company.
 Non-Assignment by Executive.
 Notice.
  
  
   -16-




---



##### 



Miscellaneous.
 Entire Agreement
 Modification.
 Counterparts.
 Tax Withholding.
 Contractual Rights to Benefits.
 No Waiver.
 Governing Law; Choice of Forum.
  -17-




---



##### 



Arbitration of Disputes.
 Interpretation.
  -18-




---



##### 



INTEGRA BANK CORPORATION
 By:Archie M. Brown, Jr.Name:Title:Company
    
    
    
    Executive
  -19-
#### The People, ex rel. John P. Masterson, Appellant, *v.*Albert Gallup, as Treasurer, etc., Respondent.

The provision of the act of 1875 conferring certain powers upon boards of supervisors (Subd. 3, § 1, chap. 483, Laws of 1875), which authorizes said boards to fix the number, grades and pay of deputies, clerks and subordinate employes in the county offices, applies only to those officers which by pre-existing law were entitled to a clerk.

Accordingly, *held,*that the appointment by a board of supervisors of a coroner’s clerk was not authorized by said act ; and that the county treasurer was justified in refusing to pay the salary of a clerk so appointed.

(Argued April 39, 1884 ;

decided May 6, 1884.)

This was an appeal from an order of General Term reversing an order of Special Term, which awarded a peremptory *mandamus*requiring defendant as treasurer of Albany county, to pay to relator his salary as clerk of the coroners of Albany county. 1

The board of supervisors of said county passed a resolution December 22, 1882, by its terms authorizing the coroners of the county to employ a clerk at a salary of $1,200; the relator was appointed as such clerk. He applied to defendant for a month’s salary, who refused to pay the same.

*Rufus W. Peckham*for appellant.

*Marcus T. Mum,*for respondent.

Agree to affirm on the ground that the act chapter 482, Laws of 1875, authorized the supervisors to prescribé the number of clerks, etc., in respect to officers only who by pre-existing law were entitled to a clerk; no opinion.

All concur, except Rug-eb, Ch. J., not voting.

Order affirmed.
# Subpart 1334.0 - General

**Parent topic:**PART 1334 - MAJOR SYSTEM ACQUISITION

## 1334.003 Responsibilities.

(a) The designee authorized to carry out the responsibilities described under FAR 34.003 is set forth in CAM 1301.70. 

(b) Agency procedures related to major system acquisitions are set forth in DAO 208-3.   

## 1334.005 General requirements.

## 1334.005-6 Full production.

The designee authorized to reaffirm mission need and program objectives and grant approval to proceed with the award of a contract for full production of a successfully tested major system is set forth in CAM 1301.70.
#### In the Matter of Mildred Steinberg et al., Appellants, v. Everett F. McNab et al., Constituting the Board of Elections of Suffolk County, Respondents. (And Another Similar Title.)

In two proceedings to validate petitions designating appellants as candidates in the Democratic Party Primary Election to be held on June 17, 1969 for the public office of Councilman of the Town of Brookhaven, the appeal is from two orders of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated June 4, 1969, which respectively dismissed the petition in each proceeding. Orders affirmed, without costs. No opinion. Beldock, P. J., and Rabin, J., concur; Benjamin, J., concurs with additional reliance on the views set forth in his memorandum in *Matter of Costantini*v. *Board of Elections of Suffolk County*(32 A D 2d 794). Hopkins and Martuseello, JJ., dissent and vote to reverse the orders and declare the designating petitions valid.
FAR Correction(s)

Please complete this form to notify the Regulatory Secretariat of errors, omissions, or

inconsistencies in the text of the FAR or FACs and submit via mail or facsimile to:

General Services Administration

Regulatory Secretariat Division (MVCB)

1800 F Street, NW

Washington, DC 20405

Telephone: (202) 501-4755

Facsimile: (202) 501-4067

FAR Part, Subpart, or Section: ____________________________________________

Page Number: ___________________________________________________________

Nature of Error(s): _____________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

Name: __________________________________________________________________

Telephone: _____________________________________________________________

E-mail Address:_________________________________________________________

Address: _______________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________
```

[House Document 109-151]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                     

109th Congress, 2d Session - - - - - - - - - - - - House Document 109-151
 
                   CERTIFICATION FOR AN EXPORT TO THE

                       PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA

                               __________

                             COMMUNICATION

                                  from

                   THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

                              transmitting

CERTIFICATION THAT THE EXPORT TO THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA OF THE 
 SPECIFIED ITEMS IS NOT DETRIMENTAL TO THE UNITED STATES SPACE LAUNCH 
 INDUSTRY, AND THAT THE MATERIAL AND EQUIPMENT, INCLUDING ANY INDIRECT 
  TECHNICAL BENEFIT THAT COULD BE DERIVED FROM SUCH EXPORTS, WILL NOT 
  MEASURABLY IMPROVE THE MISSILE OR SPACE LAUNCH CAPABILITIES OF THE 
   PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA, PURSUANT TO PUB. L. 105-261, SEC. 1512

    November 15, 2006.--Referred to the Committee on International 
                  Relations and ordered to be printed
                                           The White House,
                                     Washington, November 15, 2006.
Hon. J. Dennis Hastert,
Speaker of the House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Speaker: In accordance with the provisions of 
section 1512 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 1999 (Public Law 105-261), I hereby certify that 
the export to the People's Republic of China of the following 
items is not detrimental to the U.S. space launch industry and 
that the material and equipment, including any indirect 
technical benefit that could be derived from such exports, will 
not measurably improve the missile or space launch capabilities 
of the People's Republic of China:
           Twelve Honeywell model HG1138 inertial 
        measurement units to be incorporated into oil pipeline 
        inspection equipment by the United Kingdom firm PII 
        Group.
            Sincerely,
                                                    George W. Bush.

                                  

```