alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
SI 0-10031 1-007 

CINCINNATI/NORTHERN KENTUCKY INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT 

P.O. BOX 752000 CINCINNATI. OH 45275-2000 {859)767-3151 FAX (859) 767-3080 

March 5. 2010 

The Honorable Raymond H. LaHood 

Secretary 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Ave, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

Docket DOT-OST-2010-0034 

Dear Mr. Secretary: 

Thank you for the opportunity to express our support for the application for antitrust 

i^rtimunity and proposed joint business agreement filed by American Airlines and Japan 

Airlines. The proposed alliance between these two airlines is vital for oneworld to 

compete effectively. This increased interalliance competition will in turn enhance the 

benefits of the Department's Open Skies policy - first by solidifying U.S.-Japan Open 

Skies, then by serving as a foundation for further liberalization across Asia. 

After a thorough review, we encourage the Department of Transportation to approve this 

application as it would enable these oneworld alliance airlines to work closely together to 

deliver highly competitive air transportation services. Approval for AA/JAL alliance will 

have a positive impact on air travel by offering customers more service, scheduling and 

pricing options and will help to ensure that customers continue to benefit fi-om having 

competitive air alliances to choose from. 

I urge you to quickly approve this application. 

Sincerely, 

John C. Mok 

Chief Executive Officer 

Kenton County Airport Board
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A24A0377. COSBY et al. v. WEST COAST FUND, LLC et al.

The appellants have twice moved for and received extensions of time to file

their appellate brief in compliance with this Court’s rules. The last extension expired

on December 1, 2023. To date, the appellants have failed to file their brief.

Accordingly, the appeal is hereby DISMISSED. See Court of Appeals Rule 23 (a).

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

C l e r k ’ s O f f i c e ,

Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

December 19, 2023

12/19/2023
#### Manuel Castano et al., Appellants, v Jose M. Aguera et al., Respondents.

[803 NYS2d 439]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Hart, J), entered May 12, 2004, which, upon a jury verdict, and upon the denial of the plaintiffs’ motion, inter alia, pursuant to CPLR 4404 (a) to set aside the verdict as against the weight of the evidence and for a new trial, is in favor of the defendants and against them, dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

A jury verdict in favor of a defendant should not be set aside as against the weight of the evidence unless the evidence preponderates so heavily in the plaintiffs favor that the verdict could not have been reached on any fair interpretation of the evidence *(see Spencer v City of New York,*300 AD2d 468 [2002]; *Asaro v Micali,*292 AD2d 552 [2002]). Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention, the jury verdict was based on a fair interpretation of the evidence and the Supreme Court properly declined to set it aside *(see Derdiarian v Felix Contr. Corp.,*51 NY2d 308 [1980]; *328
      *see generally Hyman v Queens County Bancorp,*307 AD2d 984 [2003] , *affd*3 NY3d 743 [2004]; *Bitterman v Grotyohann,*295 AD2d 383 [2002]).

The plaintiffs’ remaining contention is without merit. S. Miller, J.P., Krausman, Rivera and Covello, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Rob H. Hoag, Appellant.

[803 NYS2d 457]

Appeal from a judgment of the Genesee County Court (Robert C. Noonan, J.), rendered January 8, 2004. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of sexual abuse in the first degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of sexual abuse in the first degree (Penal Law § 130.65 [1]), defendant contends that he should have been afforded youthful offender status. Defendant failed to preserve his contention for our review *(see People v Thompson,*16 AD3d 603 [2005]; *People v Stalker,*307 AD2d 765 [2003], *lv denied*100 NY2d 645 [2003]), and we decline to exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice *(see*CPL 470.15 [6] [a]). Contrary to defendant’s further contention, the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. Present—Pigott, *Jr.,*P.J., Hurlbutt, Martoche, Pine and Hayes, JJ.
Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-2015-8134 Directorate Identifier: 2014-NM-256-AD

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

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

Estimated Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Do not include oncondition costs here

Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine, 

propeller, appliance)

Work-hours

(include 

access, testing, 

and close-up)

Labor 

cost 

(@$85/h

our)

Parts Cost Total Costs 

(labor + 

parts)

Number of 

U.S. 

Registered 

Products

Total Cost 

for U.S. Fleet

Inspection 12 $1,020.0

0

$1,020.00 166 $169,320.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

The known number of products in compliance:

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $169,320

Costs covered under warranty (if known) $

On-Condition Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Work-hours 

(include access, 

testing, and closeup)

Labor cost 

(@$85/hour)

Parts Cost Cost per Product

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

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

that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs):
Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? 

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

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

either a Yes or No answer.

YES NO 

Explanation: 

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

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

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

YES* NO 

*Explanation:
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Securities and Exchange Commission

Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities and Exchange Commission will hold a Closed Meeting on Thursday, August 6, 2009 at 2 p.m.

Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the Closed Meeting. Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be present.

The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (7), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR 200.402(a)(3), (5), (7), 9(ii) and(10), permit consideration of the scheduled matters at the Closed Meeting.

Chairman Schapiro, as duty officer, voted to consider the items listed for the Closed Meeting in a closed session, and determined that no earlier notice thereof was possible.

The subject matter of the Closed Meeting scheduled for Thursday, August 6, 2009 will be:

institution and settlement of injunctive actions;

institution and settlement of an administrative proceeding; and

other matters relating to enforcement proceedings.  

At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in the scheduling of meeting items.

For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed, please contact:

The Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.

Dated: August 5, 2009.

Florence E. Harmon, 

Deputy Secretary. 

[FR Doc. E9-19042 Filed 8-5-09; 11:15 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P
# AVS

Quality Management System Title: Domestic Change Worksheet QPM# AIR·ANM·030-F4 Date: December 11,2008 Revision 

## Record ofContacts FDMS00<." No.

# FAA.iW'D ~ 

# 104'/ With whom outside the FAA ha~this proposal been 

### discussed (e.g" ATA, MA, ALPA, etc.)?

Orgallization Person Contacteu [late BuciugCompany Alan Macias 12/3109 B(lcing Company .Iohn Gruss 12/J/09 .\TA 202-62('--l12~ "lark Lope/. 12/4!U9

UNCONTROLLED COPY WHEN DOWNLOADED Chec~ the Master list to Verify That This is the Corree! Revision Before Use
IA

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 112

Providing for the appointment of Louis Gerstner as a citizen regent of

the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEPTEMBER 29, 1995

Mr. LIVINGSTON (for himself, Mr. MINETA, and Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas)

introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on House Oversight

JOINT RESOLUTION

Providing for the appointment of Louis Gerstner as a citizen

regent of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian

Institution.

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That, in accordance with section 5581 of the Revised Stat4 utes of the United States (20 U.S.C. 43), the vacancy on

5 the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution, in

6 the class other than Members of Congress, occurring by

7 reason of the resignation of Ira Michael Heyman of Cali8 fornia on May 27, 1994, is filled by the appointment of

9 Louis Gerstner of Connecticut. The appointment is for a
2

•HJ 112 IH

1 term of six years and shall take effect on the date on which

2 this joint resolution becomes law.

Æ
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 10, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

134279 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. Plaintiff- Appellee, Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices v SC: 134279 

 COA: 275367 

Wayne CC: 05-009523-01

ALFONSO JERMAINE NELSON 

a/k/a JEROME EDWARD NELSON, 

Defendant- Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 2, 2007 order of 

the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that 

the question presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

s0830 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

September 10, 2007 

 Clerk
§ 300.6 Renewal of enrollment of enrolled agent fee. ( a ) *Applicability.* This section applies to the renewal of enrollment of enrolled agents with the IRS Office of Professional Responsibility pursuant to 31 CFR 10.6(d)(6).
( b ) *Fee.* The fee for renewal of enrollment as an enrolled agent with the IRS is $140.
( c ) *Person liable for the fee.* The person liable for the renewal of enrollment fee is the person renewing their enrollment as an enrolled agent with the IRS Office of Professional Responsibility.
( d ) *Applicability date.* This section is applicable beginning October 31, 2022.
[T.D. 9288, 71 FR 58742, Oct. 5, 2006, as amended by T.D. 9503, 75 FR 60321, Sept. 30, 2010; T.D. 9523, 76 FR 21807, Apr. 19, 2011; T.D. 9858, 84 FR 20804, May 13, 2019; T.D. 9966, 87 FR 58972, Sept. 29, 2022]
From: <Alicea.Jezebele@epamail.epa.gov>

To: steam_record <steam_record@erg.com>, <Jordan.Ronald@epamail.epa.gov>

Date: 9/8/2010 11:21 AM Subject: Fw: Effluent Guideline ICR Extension Request

----- Forwarded by Jezebele Alicea/ DC/USEPA/US on 09/08/2010 11:20 AM

-----

From: "Winkler, Michael" <Michael.Winkler@eon-us.com>

To: Jezebele Alicea/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 09/07/2010 04:50 PM

Subject: Effluent Guideline ICR Extension Request

Ms. Alicea – E.ON U.S. (parent company of Loui sville Gas & Electric Company (LG&E) and Kentucky Utilities Company (KU)) would like to formally request a 30 day extension (to October 15th) in order to complete the Effluent

Guidelines ICR for th e following facilities: · LG&E – Mill Creek Station (03604) · LG&E – Cane Run Station (00174) · LG&E – Trimble County Station (01674) · KU – Ghent Station (02601) · KU – E.W. Brown Station (03672) · KU – Tyrone Station (05237) · KU – Green River Station (07311)

This request results from the temporary loss of key staff resources required for unscheduled ash pond inspections at three generating

facilities as well as a legal challenge to a recently issued NPDES permit (we are co-defendants with the State of Kentucky). Our intention had been to complete the questionnaire for the seven facilities listed above within the original 90 days, thus we did not initially request an extension during the first 21 days as required in the ICR cover letter. However, due to these circumstance s outside of our control, which occurred after the 21-day request window, we now find ourselves potentially unable to complete the questionnaire within the next nine days.

Over the last six weeks our small environmental department was required to participate in the above-me ntioned EPA ash pond impoundment inspections at three facilities, necessitating the search and generation of extensive construction documentation in storage (in some cases more than 30 years old). In addition, we have been involved with legal counsel preparing affidavits, inte rrogatories, data requests and ultimately being deposed as part of a legal challenge to a recentlyissued NPDES permit.

While the data gathering from the facilities has continued on schedule, my staff and I have not been unable to keep pace with our portion of the ICR and we are now concerned whether we can meet the September 16th deadline. Your timely consideration of our 30 day extension request is greatly appreciated.

Michael Winkler Manager, Environmental Programs
E.ON U.S.

The information contained in this transmission is intended only for the person or entity to which it is directly addressed or copied. It may contain material of confidential and/or private nature. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is not allowed. If you received this message and the information contained therein by error, please contact the sender and delete the material from your/any storage medium.
**Exhibit 34.9**

**CURCIO**

**+COHEN**

**Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

Managing Member 

Park Bridge Lender Services LLC 

New York, NY 

We have examined management’s assertion,included in the accompanying Management’s Report on Assessment of 2016 Compliance by Park Bridge Lender Services LLC with Regulation AB Servicing Criteria (“Management’s Report”), that Park Bridge Lender Services LLC (the“Company”) complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB as of and for the year ended December 31, 2016, excluding those criteria noted as notapplicable (N/A) within Exhibit B to Management’s Report. The transactions covered by this report are only those transactions processed by the Company in its capacity as trust advisor or operating advisor for the asset backed securitiestransactions (the “Platform”) identified in Management’s Report. Reference Exhibit A to Management’s Report for the transactions covered by this examination. Management is responsible for the Company’s compliance with theapplicable servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management’s assertion based on our examination. 

Our examination wasconducted in accordance with attestation standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company’s compliance with the applicable servicingcriteria and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing of a selected sample of the servicing activities related to the Platform, determining whether the Company performed thoseselected activities in compliance with the applicable servicing criteria during the specified period. Our procedures were limited to the selected transactions and servicing activities performed by the Company during the period covered by thisreport. Our examination was not designed to detect material noncompliance arising from errors that may have occurred prior to or subsequent to our tests, that may have affected the Company’s servicing activities during the period covered bythis report. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Company’s compliance with the applicable servicing criteria. 

In our opinion, management’s assertion that the Company complied with the aforementioned applicable servicing criteria identified in Exhibit B toManagement’s Report with respect to the transactions identified in Exhibit A to Management’s Report as of and for the year ended December 31, 2016, for the Platform, is fairly stated in all material aspects. 

/s/ Curcio & Cohen, CPA’s, P.C. 

New York, NY

February 2, 2017 

 
CERTIFIED PUBLICACCOUNTANTS PC 7 PENN PLAZA, SUITE 1500 NEW YORK NY 10001 

TEL: 212 557-9800 FAX: 212 557 9819    WEBSITE:WWW.CWCCPAFIRM.COM
Exhibit 35.1

Servicer Compliance Statement of AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc.

This Annual Statement as to Compliance is delivered to you pursuant to Section 4.10 (a) of the Sale and Servicing Agreement dated as of November 4,
2015 (the Agreement) and Item 1123 of Regulation AB, executed in connection with the formation of AmeriCredit Automobile Receivables Trust 2015-4 (the Trust), the issuance of the Notes
by the Trust and the closing of the transactions and the execution and delivery of the various documents by AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc. (the Servicer) and AFS SenSub Corp. in connection therewith. The capitalized terms used
herein shall have the same meanings as in the Agreement.

The undersigned certifies that I am the Executive Vice President, Corporate
Controller and Chief Accounting Officer of the Servicer. I further certify as follows:



| | 1. | I have conducted, or caused to be conducted under my supervision, a review of the Servicer during the preceding period from January 1, 2016 through December 31, 2016, and its performance under the Agreement.
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | To the best of my knowledge, following such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all its obligations under the Agreement throughout such period, and, to the best of my knowledge, there has been no default in the
fulfillment of any such obligation.
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                     |  |                                         |  |  |  |                      
|------------------------------------ |  | --------------------------------------- |  |  |  | ---------------------
|AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc. |  |                                        
|                                     |  |                                         | 
|By:                                  |  | /s/ Connie
Coffey                       |  |  |  | Dated: March 15, 2017
|                                     |  | Connie Coffey                           |  |  |  |                      
|                                     |  | Executive Vice President, Corporate     |  |  |  |                      
|                                     |  | Controller and Chief Accounting Officer |  |
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Leila McLucas, Also Known as Leila McLucas Ross, Also Known as Marie McLucas-Stover, Appellant.

[803 NYS2d 434]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Dolan, J.), rendered January 27, 2004, convicting her of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree, upon her plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We have reviewed the record and agree with the defendant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted (see *Anders v California,*386 US 738 [1967]; *People v Paige,*54 AD2d 631 [1976]; *cf. People v Gonzalez,*47 NY2d 606 [1979]). Schmidt, J.P., S. Miller, Mastro, Spolzino and Lunn, JJ., concur.