alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Order 2012-2-2

Served: February 1, 2012

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Issued by the Department of Transportation

on the 1st of February, 2012

Essential Air Service at

EAU CLAIRE, WISCONSIN

HANCOCK/HOUGHTON, MICHIGAN

MUSKEGON, MICHIGAN

PADUCAH, KENTUCKY

Under 49 U.S.C. 41731 et seq. 

 DOCKET DOT-OST-2009-0306

 DOCKET DOT-OST-2009-0302

 DOCKET DOT-OST-2009-0301

 DOCKET DOT-OST-2009-0299

ORDER SELECTING CARRIER

Order 2012-1-4 tentatively selected SkyWest Airlines, Inc., to provide subsidized Essential Air 

Service (EAS) at the four communities captioned above and directed all parties to show cause by 

January 31, 2012, why we should not make that tentative selection final. It delegated authority 

to the Director, Office of Aviation Analysis, to make that order final, provided there were no 

objections by the January 31 deadline. That deadline has passed, and at three of the communities 

-- Eau Claire, Hancock/Houghton, and Paducah – there were no objections, and we are making 

the tentative selection final. 

At Muskegon, the community requested an extension to February 14, 2012, and by Notice dated 

January 31, 2012, we granted that request. Thus at Muskegon, unlike the other three 

communities, we will not finalize the selection of SkyWest at this time.

ACCORDINGLY,

1. We make final the selection of SkyWest Airlines, Inc., to provide Essential Air Service at Eau 

Claire, Wisconsin; Hancock/Houghton, Michigan; and Paducah, Kentucky; as described in 

Appendix C of Order 2012-1-4; 

2. These dockets will remain open until further Order of the Department; and
- 2 -

3. We will serve copies of this Order on the Mayors and Airport Managers of Eau Claire, 

Wisconsin, Hancock and Houghton, Michigan; Muskegon, Michigan; and Paducah, Kentucky, 

Sovereign Air, Inc., Intrepid International Airlines, Multi-Aero, Inc., d/b/a Air Choice One, and 

SkyWest Airlines, Inc.

By:

TODD M. HOMAN

Director

Office of Aviation Analysis

(SEAL)

An electronic version of this document is available 

at http://www.regulations.gov
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED AUGUST 23, 2024

NO. 03

- 22

- 00464

- CV

Daniel James Caldwell , Appellant

v.

The State of Texas for the Protection of Jennifer Zimmerman , Appellee

APPEAL FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 4 OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES BAKER, KELLY, AND SMITH

AFFIRMED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE SMITH

This is an appeal from the order signed by the tr i a l court on July 15, 2022

. We dismiss

Caldwell’s original habeas application for want of jurisdiction

. Having otherwise reviewed the

record and the parties’ arguments, the C ourt holds that there was no reversible error in the trial

court’s order

. Therefore, the C ourt affirms the trial court’s order in all other respects. The

appellant shall pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and in the court below.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Company's Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 1997 and is qualified in
its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                         471,738
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  162,787
<ALLOWANCES>                                     5,000
<INVENTORY>                                     14,966
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               656,011
<PP&E>                                          77,682
<DEPRECIATION>                                  75,454
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,169,953
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          135,946
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       570,750
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,169,953
<SALES>                                        259,344
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               259,344
<CGS>                                           22,176
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  237,002
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,176
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 22,342
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             22,342
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    22,342
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .00
        

</TABLE>
Subpart 2407.1 - Acquisition Plans

Parent topic: PART 2407 - ACQUISITION PLANNING

2407.102 Policy.

The Senior Procurement Executive is responsible for establishing and maintaining internal

procedures that meet the criteria contained in FAR subpart 7.1 for acquisition planning and

acquisition plan content.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18
- 6584

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. ERIC RICHARDSON, a/k/a Father , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Baltimore

. James K. Bredar , Chief District Judge. ( 1:09

- cr - 00288

- JKB

- 28 )

Submitted : July 26, 2018 Decided: July 31, 2018

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, FLOYD , Circuit Judge , and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. Eric Richardson, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Eric Richardson seeks to appeal his conviction and 180

- month sentence imposed following his guilty plea to conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute controlled substances, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2012). In criminal cases, the defendant must file the notice of appeal withi n 14 days after the entry of judgment. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A). With or without a motion, upon a showing of excusable neglect or good cause, the district court may grant an extension of up to 30 days to file a notice of appeal. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(4 ); United States v. Reyes , 759 F.2d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 1985). The district court entered the criminal judgment on December 2, 2010. Richardson noted his appeal from this judgment more than seven years later, on May 15,
2018. Since Richardson failed to file a timely notice of appeal, and because he has previously attacked his criminal judgment in two unsuccessful 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motions, see United States v. Richardson , 703 F. App’x 197 (4th Cir. 2017) (No. 17

- 7132) ; United States v. Richardson , 529 F. App’x 342 (4th Cir. 2013) (No. 13

- 6687), we exercise our inherent authority to dismiss this appeal sua sponte. See United States v. Oliver , 878 F.3d 120, 128 (4th Cir. 2017) (holding that this court should sua sponte dismiss an untimely criminal ap peal when the appeal is filed “after the defendant has completed collateral review of the same judgment”)

.3 W e dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument wou ld not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
Aero-Copters of Arizona, Incorporated 

P. 0. Box 640004 

Bryce, Utah 84764 

Phone: 435.834.5050 

Email: cox@infowest.com 

June 1. 2012 

Docket Management Facility 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

West Building Ground Floor 

Room W12-140 

Washington, DC 20590 

To Whom It May Concern: 

[ 

co 

Aero-Copters of Arizona, Inc. hereby petitions for exemption from Part 120 of Title 14, Code of 

Federal Regulations (14 CFR) to allow Aero-Copters of Arizona, Inc. to cover it's safety 

sensitive employees under one drug and alcohol testing program. 

Aero-Copters of Arizona, Inc. operates under FAR 135 (Certificate# DQBA289D) on demand, 

and holds a LOA (LOA# DQBJNM07) for sightseeing operations. 

Due to the small number of employees (3 employees) and the fact that all three employees serve 

in both capacities, there would be no reduction in safety involved. 

The public would be benefited by reduction of redundant administration burden as a whole. 

Similar exemptions have been issued for small companies such as ours, where many types of 

functions are combined due to small markets. 

Respectfully submitted, 

;1kutJ~ Rebecca W. Cox, DER 

Aero-Copters of Arizona, Inc. 

P. 0. Box 640004 

Bryce, Utah 84764 

435.834.5050 

cox@infowest.com
223 So.2d 867

#### MARYLAND CASUALTY COMPANY v. Ralph COWAN.

No. 49790.

June 27, 1969.

In re: Ralph Cowan applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of Acadia. 219 So.2d 530.

Writ refused. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal its judgment is correct. See Maryland Casualty Company v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., 224 So.2d 465.
#### § 1044.09 What do you do if you plan to disclose classified or unclassified controlled nuclear information orally rather than by providing copies of documents?

You must describe in detail to the Inspector General what information you wish to disclose. The Inspector General may require that the information to be disclosed be put in writing in order to ensure the Inspector General obtains and provides accurate advice. The Inspector General will consult with the Office of Classification who will provide you with advice, through the Inspector General, as to whether the information is classified or controlled and any steps needed to protect the information.

[66 FR 4642, Jan. 18, 2001, as amended at 71 FR 68736, Nov. 28, 2006]
EX-31 Rule13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) Certifications.

 

 

I, Helaine M. Kaplan,certify that:

 

1. I have reviewedthis report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respectof the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of the COMM 2012-CCRE5Mortgage Trust (the "Exchange Act periodic reports");

 

2. Based on myknowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do not containany untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

 

3. Based on myknowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required tobe provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is includedin the Exchange Act periodic reports;

 

4. Based on myknowledge and the servicer compliance statements required in this report underItem 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Actperiodic reports, the servicers have fulfilled their obligations under theservicing agreements in all material respects; and

 

5. All of the reportson assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securitiesand their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance withservicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in thisreport in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except asotherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliancedescribed in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

 

In giving thecertifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me bythe following unaffiliated parties:

 

Midland LoanServices, a Division of PNC Bank, National Association, as Master Servicer,C-III Asset Management LLC, as Special Servicer, Wells Fargo Bank, NationalAssociation, as Trustee and Certificate Administrator, Wells Fargo Bank,National Association, as Custodian, Park Bridge Lender Services LLC, asOperating Advisor, KeyBank National Association (as successor to KeyCorp RealEstate Capital Markets, Inc.), as Primary Servicer, Wells Fargo Bank, NationalAssociation, as Primary Servicer for the Eastview Mall and Commons MortgageLoan, Torchlight Loan Services, LLC, as Special Servicer for the Eastview Malland Commons Mortgage Loan, U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee for theEastview Mall and Commons Mortgage Loan, Wells Fargo Bank, NationalAssociation, as Custodian for the Eastview Mall and Commons Mortgage Loan, ParkBridge Lender Services LLC, as Operating Advisor for the Eastview Mall andCommons Mortgage Loan, CoreLogic Commercial Real Estate Services, Inc., asServicing Function Participant for the Eastview Mall and Commons Mortgage Loan,and National Tax Search, LLC, as Servicing Function Participant for theEastview Mall and Commons Mortgage Loan.

 

 

 

Dated: March 16, 2020

 

 

/s/ Helaine M. Kaplan

 

 

President

(seniorofficer in charge of securitization of the depositor)
A TODOS LOS USUARIOS DE CORREO ELECTR”NICO

LO QUE NECESITA SABER ACERCA DE LAS CADENAS

DE CORREOS ELECTR”NICOS Y CARTAS

De: ComisiÛn Federal de Comercio

Para: Usuarios de correo electrÛnico

Fecha: Febrero de 2002

Asunto: Cadenas de correos electrÛnicos y cartas

POR FAVOR FIJE ESTE ANUNCIO EN UN LUGAR CERCANO A COMPUTADORAS.

La FTC trabaja en favor del consumidor para la prevenciÛn de pr·cticas comerciales

fraudulentas, engaÒosas y desleales dentro del mercado y proporciona informaciÛn de

utilidad al consumidor para identificar, detener y evitar dichas pr·cticas. Para presentar

un reclamo o recibir informaciÛn gratuita sobre temas de interÈs del consumidor, llame

sin cargo al 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357), o utilice el formulario de reclamo en

lÌnea visitando www.ftc.gov. La ComisiÛn Federal de Comercio ingresa todos los

reclamos relacionados a fraudes cometidos a travÈs de Internet, sistema de

telemercadeo, robo de identidad y otros reclamos fraudulentos a una segura Base de

Datos en lÌnea llamada Consumer Sentinel (Centinela del Consumidor), dicha Base de

Datos se encuentra a disposiciÛn de cientos de agencias de aplicaciÛn de la ley civil y

penal en los Estados Unidos y en el exterior del paÌs.

! Las cadenas de cartas que involucran temas de dinero o de

artÌculos de valor y que prometen grandes ganancias a cambio son

ilegales. Si usted inicia o envÌa una cadena de correo

electrÛnico o carta usted est· violando la ley.

! Lo m·s probable es que reciba poco o nada de dinero sobre su

ìinversiÛnî. A pesar de las anunciadas promesas una cadena de

cartas nunca lo har· rico.

! Algunas cadenas de cartas intentan ganar su confianza

proclamando su legalidad, o a ̇n diciendo que se encuentran

endosadas por el gobierno. Nada m·s lejos de la verdad.

! Si usted a sido destinatario de una cadena deshonesta de

mensajes de correo electrÛnico (correo basura), tome contacto con

su Proveedor de Servicios de Internet y reenvÌe el mensaje de

correo electrÛnico a la FTC a: spam@uce.gov.
No. DA 06-0166

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

2006 MT 315N

_____________________________________ STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. GEORGE WILLIAM PARRISH, Defendant and Appellant.

_____________________________________

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Eleventh Judicial District, In and for the County of Flathead, Cause No. DV-05-778(A), The Honorable Ted O. Lympus, Presiding Judge.

COUNSEL OF RECORD: For Appellant: George William Parrish (pro se), Deer Lodge, Montana For Respondent: Hon. Mike McGrath, Attorney Genera l; Mark W. Mattioli, Assistant Attorney General, Helena, Montana Ed Corrigan, Flathead County Atto rney; Daniel M. Guzynski, Deputy County Attorney, Kalispell, Montana

_____________________________________ Submitted on Briefs: October 18, 2006 Decided: December 5, 2006 Filed:

____________________________________________ ClerkChief Justice Karla M. Gray deli vered the Opinion of the Court.

¶1 Pursuant to Section I, Para graph 3(d)(v), Montana Supreme Court 1996 Internal Operating Rules, as amended in 2003, the following memorandum decision shall not be cited as precedent. It shall be filed as a public document with the Clerk of the Supreme Court and its case title, Supreme Court cause number and disp osition shall be included in this Court's quarterly list of noncitable ca ses published in the Pacific Reporter and Montana Reports. ¶2 A jury in the Eleventh Judicial District Court, Flathead Count y, convicted George

William Parrish of two counts of sexual inte rcourse without consent and two counts of

sexual assault. We affirmed th e convictions on direct appeal. See State v. Parrish , 2005 MT 112, 327 Mont. 88, 111 P.3d 671. Here, Parri sh appeals the District Court’s denial of his petition for postconviction relief. We affirm. ¶3 Parrish, who appears pro se, lists seve n issues in his brief on appeal. ¶4 We have determined to decide this case pursuant to Section 1, Paragraph 3(d) of our 1996 Internal Operating Rules, as amended in 2003, which provides for memorandum opinions. The issues Parrish ra ises on appeal are clearly controlled by settled Montana law. The issues concerning tw o of his claims--that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to timely pursue a Batson challenge and that the trial judge should have independently held a Batson hearing--were or could have been raised on direct appeal and, as a result, may not be rais ed in a petition for postconviction relief. See Ford

v. State , 2005 MT 151, ¶ 14, 327 Mo nt. 378, ¶ 14, 114 P.3d 2 44, ¶ 14 (citation omitted).

2Parrish’s remaining claims are barred because he did not support them with appropriate facts and legal authority as required by § 46-21-104(1)(c) and (2), MCA. ¶5 Affirmed.

/S/ KARLA M. GRAY

We Concur:

/S/ JAMES C. NELSON /S/ PATRICIA COTTER /S/ JIM RICE /S/ BRIAN MORRIS

3
Case 2:06-cr-00209-MHT-CSC Document 5 Filed 09/01/2006 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:06-cr-00209-MHT-CSC Document 5 Filed 09/01/2006 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:06-cr-00209-MHT-CSC Document 5 Filed 09/01/2006 Page 3 of 3
Editorial Note on Part 982
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 982 appear at 61 FR 17559, Apr. 22, 1996.

§ 982.57 Exemptions. ( a ) *General.* The Board, with the approval of the Secretary, may establish such rules, regulations, and safeguards that exempt from any or all requirements pursuant to this part such quantities of hazelnuts or types of shipments as do not interfere with the volume and quality control objectives of this part, and shall require such reports, certifications, or other conditions as are necessary to ensure that such hazelnuts are handled or used only as authorized.
( b ) *Sales by growers direct to consumers.* Any hazelnut grower may sell hazelnuts of such grower's own production free of the regulatory and assessment provisions of this part if such grower sells such hazelnuts in the area of production directly to end users at such grower's ranch or orchard or at roadside stands and farmers' markets. The Board, with the approval of the Secretary, may establish such rules, regulations, and safeguards and require such reports, certifications, and other conditions, as are necessary to ensure that such hazelnuts are disposed of only as authorized. Mail order sales are not exempt sales under this part.
[51 FR 29549, Aug. 19, 1986, as amended at 61 FR 17560, Apr. 22, 1996]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                              JAN-1-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                          14,185
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 3,527
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     75,862
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                        220,836
<ALLOWANCE>                                      2,615
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 327,095
<DEPOSITS>                                     279,404
<SHORT-TERM>                                     8,894
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              4,390
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           198
<OTHER-SE>                                      34,427
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 327,095
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  5,212
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                1,181
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                    72
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 6,465
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               2,662
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,850
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            3,615
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      360
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                  12
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  1,927
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,340
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                         903
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       903
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .53
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .53
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    1.21
<LOANS-NON>                                      1,606
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                    84
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                  9,945
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 2,484
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      340
<RECOVERIES>                                       111
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                2,615
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             2,615
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
Case 2:06-cv-00730-MHT-SRW Document 2 Filed 08/14/2006 Page 1 of 2
Case 2:06-cv-00730-MHT-SRW Document 2 Filed 08/14/2006 Page 2 of 2
#### § 983.92 Exemption.

Any handler may handle pistachios within the production area free of the requirements in §§ 983.50 through 983.58 and § 983.71 if such pistachios are handled in quantities not exceeding 5,000 dried pounds during any production year. The Secretary, upon recommendation of the committee, may issue rules and regulations changing the 5,000-pound quantity applicable to this exemption.

[74 FR 56540, Nov. 2, 2009, as amended at 88 FR 82235, Nov. 24, 2023]