alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
March 7, 2012

Esta Rosenberg, Chief

U.S. Air Carrier Licensing Division

Department of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E.

Washington, D.C. 20590

RE: Spirit Airlines, Inc. Request for Consolidated U.S.-Mexico 

Certificate (Mexico Procedural Docket DOT-OST-2011-0076)

Dear Ms. Rosenberg: 

Spirit Airlines, Inc. (“Spirit”) hereby requests that its U.S.-Mexico exemption authorities

be consolidated into a U.S.-Mexico certificate pursuant to the procedures described in the 

Department’s Notice dated February 13, 2009 in Docket DOT-OST-2005-22228. As required by 

that notice, Spirit holds a blanket open skies certificate (Order 2007-7-3). Grant of this request is 

consistent with the Department’s streamlining policy. 

Spirit requests consolidation of the following exemptions:

Fort Lauderdale-Cancun DOT- OST-2003-15306 NOAT 01/26/2011

Fort Lauderdale-Toluca DOT-OST-2011-0011 NOAT 01/26/2011

Detroit-Cancun DOT-OST-2004-18692 NOAT 07/15/2011

Dallas/Ft. Worth-Toluca DOT-OST-2012-0021 NOAT 02/17/2012

Sincerely,

Joanne W. Young

David M. Kirstein

Counsel for Spirit Airlines, Inc.

cc: Docket

Service list
Certificate of Service

I hereby certify that I have this day served the foregoing document by email on the following 

persons:

_______________________

 Lyndsey Grunewald

March 7, 2012

Anita.mosner@hklaw.com

Benjamin_slocum@usairways.com

bob.kneisley@wnco.com

Carl.nelson@aa.com

cefelts@fedex.com 

dan.weiss@united.com

howard_kass@usairways.com

jcanny@amerijet.com

jeff.morgan@delta.com 

jhill@dowlohnes.com

john.Fredericksen@suncountry.com

john.varley@virginamerica.com 

jrichardson@johnlrichardson.com

kevin.montgomery@polaraircargo.com

msinick@ssd.com

Patrick.rizzi@hoganlovells.com

pmurphy@lopmurphy.com

rbkeiner@crowell.com

Robert.cohn@hoganlovells.com

robert.land@jetblue.com

rpommer@atlasair.com

rsilverberg@sgbdc.com

sascha.vanderbellen@delta.com

steve.morrissey@united.com

Stephen.lachter@lachterlaw.com

john.allen@faa.gov

urskr@state.gov

esta.rosenberg@dot.gov

brian.hedberg@dot.gov

brett.kruger@dot.gov
#### § 594.314 U.S. financial institution.

The term *U.S. financial institution* means any U.S. person (including its foreign branches) that is engaged in the business of accepting deposits, making, granting, transferring, holding, or brokering loans or credits, or purchasing or selling foreign exchange, securities, commodity futures or options, or procuring purchasers and sellers thereof, as principal or agent; including but not limited to, depository institutions, banks, savings banks, trust companies, securities brokers and dealers, commodity futures and options brokers and dealers, forward contract and foreign exchange merchants, securities and commodities exchanges, clearing corporations, investment companies, employee benefit plans, and U.S. holding companies, U.S. affiliates, or U.S. subsidiaries of any of the foregoing. This term includes those branches, offices and agencies of foreign financial institutions that are located in the United States, but not such institutions' foreign branches, offices, or agencies.
# C_2005281EN.01001401.xml

| 12.11.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 281/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.11.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 281/14

---

Action brought on 23 September 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain

(Case C-357/05)

(2005/C 281/27)

Language of the case: Spanish

An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 23 September 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by B. Schima and S. Pardo Quintillán, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| 1. | declare that, by having failed to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2003/55/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2003 concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas and repealing Directive 98/30/EC or, in any case, by having failed to communicate those provisions to the Commission, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 33 of that directive; |
| --- | --- |

1.

declare that, by having failed to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2003/55/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2003 concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas and repealing Directive 98/30/EC or, in any case, by having failed to communicate those provisions to the Commission, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 33 of that directive;

1

| 2. | order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period prescribed for transposition of the directive into the domestic legal system expired on 1 July 2004.

---

(1)  OJ L 176 of 15 July 2003, p. 57

1

---
HomeSaudi Arabia

# Saudi Arabia

369 items

        -    Interview  		Secretary Antony J. Blinken With Jake Tapper of CNN’s The Lead with Jake Tapper	  Antony J. BlinkenApril 27, 2021Washington, D.C. 
        -    Press Statement  		Houthis Attack While the International Community Commits to End Conflict in Yemen	  Ned PriceApril 15, 2021 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – April 6, 2021	  Ned PriceApril 6, 2021 
        -    Press Statement  		The Sentencing of Saudi Humanitarian Aid Worker Abdulrahman al-Sadhan	  Ned PriceApril 6, 2021 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – March 31, 2021	  Ned PriceMarch 31, 2021Washington, DC 
        -    Media Note  		U.S. Special Envoy Lenderking’s Trip to Saudi Arabia and Oman	  March 31, 2021 
        -    Report  		2020 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Saudi Arabia	  March 30, 2021 
        -    Press Statement  		Houthis Attack, Yemenis Suffer	  Ned PriceMarch 26, 2021 
        -    Interview  		Secretary Antony J. Blinken With Dana Bash of CNN’s State of the Union	  Antony J. BlinkenMarch 25, 2021NATO HeadquartersBrussels, Belgium  
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – March 22, 2021	  Jalina PorterMarch 22, 2021 

previous page1…2930313233…37next page

Back to Top
# C_2005243EN.01001002.xml

| 1.10.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 243/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.10.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 243/10

---

Action brought on 4 August 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of the Netherlands

(Case C-308/05)

(2005/C 243/16)

Language of the case: Dutch

An action against the Kingdom of the Netherlands was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 4 August 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by A. Aresu and H. van Vliet, acting as Agents.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| 1. | Declare that, by not taking the legal and administrative measures necessary to implement Directive 2001/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 December 2001 on general product safety, or in any event by not communicating such measures to the Commission, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declare that, by not taking the legal and administrative measures necessary to implement Directive 2001/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 December 2001 on general product safety, or in any event by not communicating such measures to the Commission, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.

| 2. | order Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

order Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Article 21 of that directive provides that Member States are to bring the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary in order to comply with the directive into force with effect from 15 January 2004, and to inform the Commission thereof forthwith.

The Commission observes that the Kingdom of the Netherlands has still not taken or notified those implementing measures.

---
#### § 21.27 Eligibility; senior assistant grade.

Every candidate for examination for appointment in the grade of senior assistant shall meet the requirements for eligibility for examination for appointment in the grade of assistant and shall have completed at least 10 years of educational and professional training or experience subsequent to high school.
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 22-2047

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Roscoe Chambers, also known as Tommy

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant

 ____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Iowa - Eastern

 ____________

 Submitted: August 11, 2022

Filed: August 16, 2022

[Unpublished]

____________

Before SHEPHERD, MELLOY, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Roscoe Chambers appeals after the district court1 revoked his supervised

release and sentenced him to 2 years in prison and 8 years of supervised release. His

1The Honorable Stephanie M. Rose, Chief Judge, United States District Court

for the Southern District of Iowa.
counsel has moved for leave to withdraw, and has filed a brief challenging the

sentence. Chambers has filed a pro se brief arguing that he did not violate the terms

of his supervised release and challenging the sentence.

As to the argument in counsel’s brief, after careful review of the record, we

conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Chambers,

as it properly considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors; there was no indication that

it overlooked a relevant factor, or committed a clear error of judgment in weighing

relevant factors, see United States v. Miller, 557 F.3d 910, 915-18 (8th Cir. 2009)

(substantive reasonableness of revocation sentence is reviewed under deferential

abuse-of-discretion standard); see also United States v. White Face, 383 F.3d 733,

740 (8th Cir. 2004) (district court need not mechanically list every § 3553(a) factor

when sentencing defendant upon revocation; all that is required is consideration of

relevant matters and some reason for court’s decision); and the sentence was below

the statutory limit, see 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) (maximum revocation prison term is

5 years for Class A felony); 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B) (maximum supervised release

term is life).

As to Chambers’s remaining pro se arguments, we conclude that the district

court did not err in finding that he had violated the terms of his supervised release. 

See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) (court may revoke supervised release if it finds by

preponderance of evidence that defendant violated condition of supervised release);

United States v. Miller, 557 F.3d at 913-14 (this court reviews decision to revoke

supervised release for abuse of discretion, and underlying factual findings as to

whether a violation occurred for clear error); United States v. Farmer, 567 F.3d 343,

347 (8th Cir. 2009) (discussing limited right to confrontation at revocation hearing). 

We also conclude that Chambers may not challenge his original classification as a

career offender in this proceeding. See Miller, 557 F.3d at 913 (defendant may not

challenge validity of his underlying sentence through collateral attack in supervised

release revocation proceeding).

-2-
Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and affirm.

______________________________

-3-
# Israel

906 items

        -    Report  		Israel, Golan Heights, West Bank, and Gaza – West Bank and Gaza	  April 20, 2018 
        -    Report  		Israel and The Occupied Territories – The Occupied Territories	  August 15, 2017 
        -    Report  		Israel and The Occupied Territories	  August 15, 2017 
        -    Report  		Israel	  June 29, 2017 
        -    Report  		Israel	  June 27, 2017 
        -    Report  		Israel and The Occupied Territories	  March 3, 2017 
        -    TIAS  		Israel (16-1013) – Arrangement for the Exchange of Technical Information and Cooperation in Nuclear Safety and Research Matters	  October 13, 2016 
        -    TIAS  		Israel (16-829) – Agreement to Improve International Tax Compliance and to Implement the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act	  August 29, 2016 
        -    Foreign Assistance Evaluations: Economic Development  		Middle East Irrigation Management Information Systems – USDA – DOS – NEA (Summary)	  May 25, 2016 
        -    TIAS  		Israel (15-1013) – Space Cooperation in Aeronautics and the Exploration and Use of Airspace and Outer Space for Peaceful Purposes	  October 13, 2015 

previous page1…8788899091next page

Back to Top
#### § 579.303 Entity.

The term *entity* means a partnership, association, trust, joint venture, corporation, group, subgroup, or other organization.
# C_2005283EN.01000101.xml

| 16.11.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 283/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.11.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 283/1

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

15 November 2005

(2005/C 283/01)

1 euro=

1 euro

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1667 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 139,11 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4572 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,6732 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,6325 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,5413 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 72,8 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 7,793 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9555 |
| CYP | Cyprus pound | 0,5734 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 29,285 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 250,26 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,6964 |
| MTL | Maltese lira | 0,4293 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 3,994 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 3,6379 |
| SIT | Slovenian tolar | 239,5 |
| SKK | Slovak koruna | 38,845 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 1,5901 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,602 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,3961 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 9,0495 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,7106 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,9889 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 207,07 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 7,9271 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 9,4322 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,3575 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 11 678,67 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,4101 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 63,789 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 33,706 |
| THB | Thai baht | 48,07 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1667

JPY

Japanese yen

139,11

DKK

Danish krone

7,4572

GBP

Pound sterling

0,6732

SEK

Swedish krona

9,6325

CHF

Swiss franc

1,5413

ISK

Iceland króna

72,8

NOK

Norwegian krone

7,793

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9555

CYP

Cyprus pound

0,5734

CZK

Czech koruna

29,285

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

250,26

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,6964

MTL

Maltese lira

0,4293

PLN

Polish zloty

3,994

RON

Romanian leu

3,6379

SIT

Slovenian tolar

239,5

SKK

Slovak koruna

38,845

TRY

Turkish lira

1,5901

AUD

Australian dollar

1,602

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,3961

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

9,0495

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,7106

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,9889

KRW

South Korean won

1 207,07

ZAR

South African rand

7,9271

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

9,4322

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,3575

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

11 678,67

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,4101

PHP

Philippine peso

63,789

RUB

Russian rouble

33,706

THB

Thai baht

48,07

---

(1)

1

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

Source:

---
#### § 31.3 Use of Service facilities.

Except as otherwise provided in §§ 31.3 to 31.10, the persons specified in § 31.2 shall be entitled to medical, surgical, and dental treatment and hospitalization only at medical relief stations and by designated physicians and designated dentists, and the cost of services procured elsewhere shall not be borne by the Service.

(Sec. 326, 58 Stat. 697, as amended 42 U.S.C. 253)
§ 405.2440 Conditions for reinstatement after termination by CMS. When CMS has terminated an agreement with a FQHC, CMS does not enter into another agreement with the FQHC to participate in the Medicare program unless CMS— ( a ) Finds that the reason for the termination no longer exists; and
( b ) Is assured that the reason for the termination of the prior agreement will not recur.
[57 FR 24978, June 12, 1992, as amended at 79 FR 25476, May 2, 2014]
§ 408.2 Scope and purpose. ( a ) This part sets forth the policies and procedures for determining the amount of monthly supplementary medical insurance (SMI) premiums, for the payment, collection, or refund of premiums, for termination of coverage because of nonpayment of premiums, and for reinstatement of coverage if certain conditions are met. It conforms to subpart C of part 407 of this chapter, which sets forth the requirements for State buy-in agreements. These policies are intended to protect enrollee coverage to the maximum degree compatible with maintaining the integrity of the SMI program.
( b ) Policies that apply to premiums that certain individuals must pay in order to become entitled to Medicare Part A hospital insurance benefits, are set forth in part 406 of this chapter.
[52 FR 48115, Dec. 18, 1987; 53 FR 4159, Feb. 12, 1988]
HomeUnited Arab Emirates

# United Arab Emirates

254 items

        -    TIAS  		United Arab Emirates (02-1211) – Air Transport Agreement	  December 11, 2002 
        -    TIAS  		United Arab Emirates (13040) – Agreement for Cooperation in the Global Learning and Observations to Benefit the Environment (GLOBE) Program	  June 6, 1999 
        -    TIAS  		United Arab Emirates (12906) – Agreement Regarding Taxation of Income Derived from the International Operation of Ships or Aircraft	  December 1, 1997 
        -    TIAS  		United Arab Emirates (87-523) – Agreement Concerning Defense Security of Information	  May 23, 1987 

previous page1…242526

Back to Top
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

NO. CAAP-19-0000704

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

In the Matter of the Application of PIONEER MILL 

COMPANY, LIMITED, to register title and confirm its title 

to land situate at Lāhainā, Island and County of Maui, 

State of Hawai#i, and KAHOMA LAND LLC, 

Substituted Applicant as to Lots 1, 2 and 3A.

APPEAL FROM THE LAND COURT

(Ld. Ct. App. No. 439(amended), Ld. Ct. Case No. 09-0300)

ORDER

(By: Ginoza, Chief Judge, Leonard and Hiraoka, JJ.)

Upon review of the document titled "To Reconsider its

Order" filed by self-represented non-party Joseph Kanaina Kini

(Kini) on November 27, 2020, which we construe as a motion for

reconsideration of our Order entered on October 19, 2020, and the

record on appeal, it appears that Kini's motion is untimely

because it was not filed within 10 days after the filing of the

Order as required under Rule 40 of the Hawai#i Rules of Appellate

Procedure.

Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-19-0000704

02-DEC-2020

07:54 AM

Dkt. 508 ODMR
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Kini's motion "To

Reconsider its Order" is denied.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, December 2, 2020.

/s/ Lisa M. Ginoza

Chief Judge

/s/ Katherine G. Leonard

Associate Judge

/s/ Keith K. Hiraoka

Associate Judge
# C_2005203EN.01000301.xml

| 19.8.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 203/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.8.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 203/3

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.3858 — Lehman Brothers/SCG/Starwood/Le Meridien)

(2005/C 203/04)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 20 July 2005, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition web site (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition web site (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32005M3858. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32005M3858. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex)

---
p.1 

OAR Box 1384 

Prepped by Charmelle Mathews 

Document Number: 

56) ll-E-16 

Docket Number: 

A-94-52 

Printed 7/2/2008 8:42:04 AM 

| 

II 

I 

II 

j 

II 

II 

! 

Sheet 56 of 264 

\ 

I 

j 

I 

I 

I 

I 

| 
P.2 

;fl>£- /6 

CONTACT REPORT FORM 

PES PROJECT NO. N204 

FROM: Greg M. Pagett 

DATE: October 25 1993 

CONTACTED BY: Telephone 

COMPANY/AGENCY: R. D. Werner Company, Inc. 

(Address/Telephone No.:) Franklin Park, IL 

(708) 455-9450 x273 

Person(s) Contacted Title Extension 

Robert P. DeGraff Manager, Project 

Engineering Services 

Contact Summary: I contacted Mr. DeGraff concerning the "proprietary" styrene 

fume collection system referred to in the screening survey response. Mr. 

DeGraff informed me that the system was designed and built by his company to 

confine and evacuate styrene emissions from the workplace. The system was 

required to satisfy OSHA regulations as well as anticipated future EPA 

requirements. 

Styrene emissions are collected as they fall out of the pultrusion wet 

out area (styrene is heavier than air). The emissions are captured at very 

low rates, ducted,' and vented to the atmosphere. Although no control devices 

are used to reduce emissions, Mr. DeGraff felt that styrene emissions from the 

plant were lower than most pultruders because of the method used to collect 

the emissions. Werner's technique minimizes evaporation losses during 

collection because of the absence of significant evacuation air streams that 

tend to mix with the styrene coming off the wet out baths. The turbulence 

from most evacuation systems lowers pressure around the bath which leads to 

higher styrene evaporation rates. Mr. DeGraff felt that the system allowed 

Werner to be a more cost effective operation because of lower evaporative 

losses. Total enclosure of the wet out area was not considered feasible since 

the pultrusion operator must have quick and easy access to prevent jamming of 

the fibers, which can cause the operation to shut down. 

Clean Air Engineering performed an emissions analysis for Werner to help 

them understand the flow of styrene from the wet out area so that a system 

could be designed. Some stack tests were also done to verify the 

effectiveness of the collection system. This test data can be obtained by 

formal request from Werner.