alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
AVIATION RESUME

August 24, 2014

Stanley C. DeLong

5543 Willow Ln

Murray, Ut 84107

(801)261-3644 (H)

(801)673-7973 (C)

ATP - Multiengine Land

Commercial Privileges - Single Engine Land & Sea

Gold Seal Flight Instructor - Airplanes, Instruments, Multiengine Ex 05/2016

Ground Instructor - Advanced & Instrument

2

nd Class Medical expires March 2015

Turbine Recurrency completed April 2014

Total Time: 17,566

SEL: 7,736

MEL: 9,144

Employment 1982-1988 – Mountain Bird Inc. dba SALMON AIR –pilot

Employment 1988-2000

Ameriflight

4700 Empire Av Hangar 1

Burbank, CA 91505

(800)800-4538

Training Captain

Division Chief Pilot

Division Manager operating PA-31, BE90/200, SA-227, BE1900

Employment 2001-2005

Mountain Bird, Inc. dba SALMON AIR

29 Hamner Drive

Salmon, ID 83467 

(208)756-6211

Chief Pilot – Vice President, Scheduled Airline Operations 

Employment 2005-2006

American Aviation

176 N 200 W

Salt Lake City, UT 83116

(801)537-1537

Director of Operations (continue at present as test pilot for flare drops)
Employment 2006-Present

DeLong Aviation Services LLC

5543 S Willow Ln

Murray, UT 84107

Contract Instructor/Pilot for:

Michael A. Belfort, MBBCH, DA(SA), MD

Maternal Fetal Medicine

St Lukes Hospital, SLC, UT

2009-2012 – contract pilot under DeLong Aviation Service LLC

& also

Office of the Chairman

6651 Main Street

Suite 1040F

Texas Children's Pavilion for Women

Texas Medical Center

Houston, Texas 77030

Tel: 832-826-7375

 

Gem Air LLC – SALMON AIR 

29 Hamner Drive

Salmon, ID 83467

(208)756-6211

Business Development and Chief Pilot (2008-2009)

Gem Air, LLC

31 Hamner Drive

Salmon, ID 83467

208-756-7382

Business Development and Chief Pilot (July 2014-present)

AeroCorporate, Abidjan, Cote d'Ivoire

Airline Director of Training, Regulation Compliance Officer, 

Check Airman SW-3, ANAC appointed Check Airman for foreign 

license validation, Cote d'Ivoire

Endeavor Capital Group, Salt Lake City, Utah

Captain SW-3B

References by request
IA

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. J. RES. 141

Making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 1996, and for

other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 3, 1996

Mr. OBEY introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the

Committee on Appropriations

JOINT RESOLUTION

Making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year

1996, and for other purposes.

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That section 106(c) of Public Law 104–56 is amended by

4 striking ‘‘December 15, 1995’’ and inserting ‘‘February

5 9, 1996’’.

Æ
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

JAIME GONZALEZ, §

No. 08

- 15

- 00187

- CR

Appellant, §

Appeal from the

v. §

34th Judicial District Court

§

THE STATE OF TEXAS, of El Paso County, Texas

§

Appellee. (TC# 20110D03634)

§

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes the appeal should be

dismissed for want of jurisdiction, in accordance with the opinion of this Court. We therefore

dismiss the appeal. This decision shal l be certified below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 10TH DAY OF JULY, 2015.

YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez and Hughes, JJ.
§ 1.6015-8 Applicable liabilities. ( a ) *In general.* Section 6015 applies to liabilities that arise after July 22, 1998, and to liabilities that arose prior to July 22, 1998, that were not paid on or before July 22, 1998.
( b ) *Liabilities paid on or before July 22, 1998.* A requesting spouse seeking relief from joint and several liability for amounts paid on or before July 22, 1998, must request relief under section 6013(e) and the regulations thereunder.
( c ) *Examples.* The following examples illustrate the rules of this section:
Example 1. H and W file a joint Federal income tax return for 1995 on April 15, 1996. There is an understatement on the return attributable to an omission of H's wage income. On October 15, 1998, H and W receive a 30-day letter proposing a deficiency on the 1995 joint return. W pays the outstanding liability in full on November 30, 1998. In March 1999, W files Form 8857, requesting relief from joint and several liability under section 6015(b). Although W's liability arose prior to July 22, 1998, it was unpaid as of that date. Therefore, section 6015 is applicable.
Example 2. H and W file their 1995 joint Federal income tax return on April 15, 1996. On October 14, 1997, a deficiency of $5,000 is assessed regarding a disallowed business expense deduction attributable to H. On June 30, 1998, the Internal Revenue Service levies on the $3,000 in W's bank account in partial satisfaction of the outstanding liability. On August 31, 1998, W files a request for relief from joint and several liability. The liability arose prior to July 22, 1998. Section 6015 is applicable to the $2,000 that remained unpaid as of July 22, 1998, and section 6013(e) is applicable to the $3,000 that was paid prior to July 22, 1998.
[T.D. 9003, 67 FR 47285, July 18, 2002]
Editorial Note on Part 301
Editorial Note: In the text of this part, integral section references are to sections of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954; decimal section references are to the Code of Federal Regulations. References in the text to the “Code” are references to sections of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954.

§ 301.6678-1 Failure to furnish statements to payees. ( a ) *In general.* In the case of each failure to furnish a statement required— ( 1 ) Under section 6042(c) and § 1.6042-4 to a person with respect to whom a return has been made under section 6042(a)(1), relating to information returns with respect to payment of dividends aggregating $10 or more in a calendar year,
( 2 ) Under section 6044(e) and § 1.6044-5 to a person with respect to whom a return has been made under section 6044(a)(1), relating to information returns with respect to certain payments by cooperatives aggregating $10 or more in a calendar year,
( 3 ) Under section 6049(c) and § 1.6049-3 to a person with respect to whom a return has been made under section 6049(a)(1), relating to information returns with respect to payments of interest aggregating $10 or more in a calendar year,
( 4 ) Under section 6039(b) and § 1.6039-2 to a person with respect to whom a return has been made under section 6039(a), relating to information returns with respect to certain stock option transactions occurring in a calendar year, or
( 5 ) Under section 6052(b) and § 1.6052-2 to a person with respect to whom a return has been made under section 6052(a), relating to information returns with respect to payment of wages in the form of group-term life insurance provided for an employee on his life, within the time prescribed for furnishing such statement (determined with regard to any extension of time for furnishing), there shall be paid by the person failing to so furnish the statement $10 for each such statement not so furnished. However, the total amount imposed on the delinquent person for all such failures during a calendar year shall not exceed $25,000.
( b ) *Manner of payment.* The penalty imposed under section 6678 and this section on any person shall be paid in the same manner as tax upon the issuance of a notice and demand therefor.
( c ) *Showing of reasonable cause.* The penalty imposed by section 6678 shall not apply with respect to a failure to furnish a statement within the time prescribed if it is established to the satisfaction of the district director or the director of the regional service center that such failure was due to reasonable cause and not to willful neglect. An affirmative showing of reasonable cause must be made in the form of a written statement, containing a declaration that it is made under the penalties of perjury, setting forth all the facts alleged as a reasonable cause.
Exhibit 34.13



|     |  |                                                                                                                              
|---- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|LOGO |  | Plante & Moran, PLLC
10 South Riverside Plaza 9th floor Chicago, IL 60606
Tel: 312.207.1040 Fax:
312.207.1066 Plantemoran.com

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To the Board of Directors

National Tax Search, LLC

We have examined National Tax Search, LLCs (the Company) compliance with the Securities and Exchange Commissions Regulation AB
Servicing Criteria, set forth in Item 1122(d) of the Security and Exchange Commissions Regulation AB for the National Tax Search TaxQ system (the Platform) as of and for the year ended December 31, 2016. The Company has
determined that only certain servicing criteria, 1122(d)(l)(ii), 1122(d)1(iv), 1122(d)2(ii), 1122(d)2(v), 1122(d)2(vi), 1122(d)(4)(xi), and 1122(d)(4)(xii), are applicable to the activities performed by it with respect to the Platform covered by
this report. The Company has determined that the remaining servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the SEC Regulation AB are not applicable to the activities performed by it with respect to the Platform covered by this report.

Management is responsible for the Companys compliance with those servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on managements
assertion about the Companys compliance with the servicing criteria based on our examination. Our examination was conducted in accordance with 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 servicing criteria and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examination included a selection of a
sample of transactions and compliance activities related to the Platform during the examination period and determining whether the Company processed those transactions and performed those activities in compliance with the servicing criteria. Our
testing of selected transactions and compliance activities was limited to calculations, reports, and activities performed by the Company during the period covered by this report. Our procedures did not include determining whether errors may have
occurred prior to our tests that may have affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by this report for the selected transactions or any other transactions. 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 servicing criteria.

In our opinion, managements assertion that the Company complied with the aforementioned servicing criteria as of and for the year ended
December 31, 2016 for the Platform is fairly stated in all material respects.



LOGO

Chicago, IL

January 27,
2017



LOGO
| (logo) WELLS FARGO | **Commercial Mortgage Servicing**D1050-084, 8th Floor  401 South Tryon St.  Charlotte, NC 28202  1-800-326-1334 |
|--------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

**ANNUAL STATEMENT OFCOMPLIANCE**

 

Reference is hereby made tothat certain Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of December 1, 2016, byand among J.P. Morgan Chase Commercial Mortgage Securities Corp., as Depositor,Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Master Servicer, LNR Partners, LLC,as Special Servicer, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as CertificateAdministrator, Wilmington Trust, National Association, as Trustee, andPentalpha Surveillance LLC, as Operating Advisor and as Asset RepresentationsReviewer, with respect to Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series2016-JP4 (the "Agreement"). Capitalized terms used herein not otherwisedefined shall have the meanings assigned in the Agreement.

 

Pursuant to Section 11.09 ofthis Agreement, I, Daniel Bober, Executive Vice President of CommercialMortgage Services do hereby certify that:

 

1. A review of the activitiesof the Master Servicer during the period from December 1, 2016 through December31, 2016 (the “Reporting Period”), and of its performance per the Agreementduring such period has been made under my supervision, and 

 

2. To the best of myknowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer has fulfilled all of itsobligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout theReporting Period.

  

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, theundersigned has executed this Certificate as of the 28th day of February 2017.

 

/s/Daniel Bober

Daniel Bober

Executive Vice President 

Wells Fargo Bank

 

 

| Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. | (logo) Together we’ll go far |
|------------------------|------------------------------------|
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    Exhibit 11


                              POTASH CORPORATION OF
                                SASKATCHEWAN INC.
                        COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
                       FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30

          (Figures and amounts expressed in thousands, except per share
                            and per option amounts)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                               2000           1999
                                                                             ---------     ---------

<S>                                                                          <C>            <C>
A        Net income as reported, Canadian GAAP                               $  60,120      $ 61,790

B        Items adjusting net income                                          $     861             -

C        Net income, US GAAP (A+B)                                           $  60,981      $ 61,790

D        Weighted average number of shares outstanding.....................     52,507        54,257

E        Options outstanding to purchase equivalent shares.................      3,581         2,944

F        Average exercise price per option.................................  $   64.71      $  70.36

G        Average market price per share....................................  $   54.74      $  56.62

H        Period end market price per share.................................  $   55.19      $  51.75

I        Rate of Return available on option proceeds                             5.00%         5.00%

         CANADIAN GAAP

         Basic earnings per share (A/D)                                      $    1.15      $   1.14

         Fully diluted earnings per share

J        Imputed earnings on options proceeds (E*F*I)                        $   2,897      $  2,589

         Fully diluted earnings per share ((A+J)/(D+E))                      $    1.12      $   1.13

         UNITED STATES GAAP

         Basic earnings per share (C/D)                                      $    1.16      $   1.14

         Fully diluted earnings per share

K        Net additional shares issuable (E-(E*F/G))                                  0             -

         Fully diluted earnings per share (C/(D+K))........................  $    1.16      $   1.14

</TABLE>
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-40572 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus CHARLES DANIEL DEARING, JR., Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas

(9:01-CR-8-1) December 31, 2002 Before BARKSDALE, DeMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Charles Daniel Dearing, Jr. , appeals the revocation of his term of supervised release, received for violating 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1) & (b)(1)(B) (p ossession with intent to distribute approximately 327 kilograms of marijuana). Dearing contends the district court lacked ju risdiction to
revoke his supervised release. Questions of jurisdiction are
reviewed de novo

. E.g., United States v. Alvarado , 201 F.3d 379,
381 (5th Cir. 2000). The district court’s jurisdiction “extendsbeyond the expiration of the term of supervised release for any

period reasonably necessary for the adjudication of matters arising
before its expiration” if, as here, a warrant or summons is issued
before expiration. 18 U.S.C. § 3583(i) (emphasis added). Dearing
asserts his revocation hearing was held subsequent to the “reasonably necessary” period. The total delay was approximately 13 months. On similar facts, our court held recently that a delay of almost three years
did not result in a loss of jurisdiction. U nited States

v. Naranjo , 259 F.3d 379 (5th Cir. 2001), c ert. denied , 534 U.S.
1163 (2002). On this record, the district court retained jurisdiction.

AFFIRMED
#### In the Matter of Bryan C., a Person Alleged to be a Juvenile Delinquent, Appellant.

[805 NYS2d 105]

In a juvenile delinquency proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 3, the appeal is from an order of disposition of the Family Court, Queens County (Bogacz, J.), dated December 9, 2004, which, upon a fact-finding order of the same court dated October 19, 2004, made after a hearing, finding that the appellant had committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crimes of robbery in the second degree, grand larceny in the fourth degree, and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, adjudged him to be a juvenile delinquent, and placed him on probation for a period of 12 months. The appeal brings up for review the fact-finding order dated October 19, 2004.

Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The. issue of whether the presentment agency adduced legally sufficient evidence to establish the appellant’s identity is unpreserved for appellate review *(see Matter of Hector R.,*248 AD2d 390 [1998]; *Matter of Aaron B.,*194 AD2d 666, 667 [1993]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the presentment agency *(see*Family Ct Act § 342.2 [2]; *Matter of David H.,*69 NY2d 792 [1987]; *cf People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the appellant’s identity as the perpetrator beyond a reasonable doubt.

Moreover, “[w]hen a witness positively identifies a person as the perpetrator of a crime, the weight of the evidence of identification is a question primarily for the fact finder, unless it is incredible as a matter of law” *(Matter of Ryan W.,*143 AD2d 435, 436 [1988]). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the Family Court’s findings were not against the weight of the evidence *(see Matter of James B.,*262 AD2d 480, 481 [1999]; *cf.*CPL 470.15 [5]). Cozier, J.P., Krausman, Skelos and Lunn, JJ., concur.
**ARB Transient 55mph Cruise** **65mph Cruise**

'Brk energy Class 2b-5' '[kWh]' 0.97 0.00 0.00 'Brk energy Class 6-7' '[kWh]' 1.61 0.00 0.00 'Brk energy Class 7' '[kWh]' 3.35 0.00 0.00 'Brk energy Class 8' '[kWh]' 4.55 0.00 0.00
Trk energy Class 2b-5 at wheel''[kWh]' 2.47 5.56 8.76 Trk energy Class 6-7 at wheel''[kWh]' 3.49 6.06 9.35 Trk energy Class 7 at wheel' '[kWh]' 6.33 7.83 11.64 Trk energy Class 8 at wheel' '[kWh]' 8.24 8.76 12.74
'Brk/Traction Energy Class 2b-5'[] 39% 0 0 'Brk/Traction Energy Class 6-7'[] 46% 0 0 'Brk/Traction Energy Class 7' [] 53% 0 0 'Brk/Traction Energy Class 8' [] 55% 0 0**Weighted (at wheel) Weighted (Pre-Trans)** 

0.255 0.424 0.884 1.203

1.021 1.317 **Transient** 2.170 **Proposed Weighting**75% 2.726 **Miles** 2.84

25% 23% 32% 30% 41% 39% 44% 42%**55 mph 65 mph** 

9% 16% 4.585.41**ARB Transient 55mph Cruise** 

'Brk energy Class 2b-5' [ws] 0.27 0.00 'Brk energy Class 6-7' [ws] 0.45 0.00 'Brk energy Class 7' [ws] 0.93 0.00 'Brk energy Class 8' [ws] 1.27 0.00
Trk energy Class 2b-5 at wheel'[ws] 0.69 1.54 Trk energy Class 6-7 at wheel' [ws] 0.97 1.68 Trk energy Class 7 at wheel' [ws] 1.76 2.18 Trk energy Class 8 at wheel' [ws] 2.29 2.43
'Brk/Traction Energy Class 2b-5'[] 39% 0 'Brk/Traction Energy Class 6-7' [] 46% 0 'Brk/Traction Energy Class 7' [] 53% 0 'Brk/Traction Energy Class 8' [] 55% 0**65mph Cruise Weighted (at wheel)**  **Weighted (Pre-Trans)**

0.00 0.071 0.00 0.118 0.00 0.246 0.00 0.334

2.43 0.283 2.60 0.366 3.23 0.603 3.54 0.757

0 25% 23% 0 32% 30% 0 41% 39% 0 44% 42%**Transient Proposed Weighting**  75% **Miles** 2.84**55 mph 65 mph**  9% 16% 4.58 5.41
#### In the Matter of Alfred Blanche, Petitioner, v Robert Dennison, as Chairman of New York State Division of Parole, Respondent.

[805 NYS2d 497]

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department by order of the Supreme Court, Wyoming County [Mark H. Dadd, A.J.], entered April 26, 2005) to review a determination of respondent. The determination rescinded petitioner’s open parole release date after a hearing.

It is hereby ordered that the determination be and the same hereby is unanimously annulled on the law without costs and the amended petition is granted.

Memorandum: In this CPLR article 78 proceeding, petitioner contends that the Board of Parole (Board) erred in rescinding his open parole release date because, in doing so, the Board failed to follow its own rules and regulations. We agree. When this matter previously was before us, we annulled the determination rescinding petitioner’s open parole release date based on findings of guilt with respect to three charges, concluding that the Board erroneously relied on findings of guilt with respect to two charges that had been reversed and expunged *(Matter of Blanche v Travis,*306 AD2d 888 [2003]). Because we could not ascertain whether the Board would have reached the same determination had it not considered the charges that had been reversed and expunged, we “remitted] the matter to respondent for a de novo hearing before a different panel of the Board, which will consider *only*the sustained charge in determining whether to rescind petitioner’s open parole release date” *(id.*at 889 [emphasis added]). On remittal, however, respondent filed a new rescission report with the charge previously sustained as well as a new charge. Following a hearing, the Board dismissed the charge previously sustained but found petitioner guilty of the new charge. We agree with petitioner that the Board failed to follow the proper procedures in issuing a new rescission report containing a new charge. When a rescission report is issued, the report must be submitted to a member of the Board who, upon review of the report, must determine whether a rescission hearing is warranted *(see*9 NYCRR 8002.5 [b] [3], [4]). *1075That procedure was not followed in this case, and petitioner was prejudiced thereby because he was not afforded the process he was due with respect to the new charge *(cf. Matter of Jones v Berbary,*283 AD2d 955 [2001]). Because the charge that was the basis for our remittal was dismissed, no further proceedings on that charge are appropriate. Present—Scudder, J.P., Martoche, Pine, Lawton and Hayes, JJ.