alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 13.35 Request for hearing, complaint, and answer. ( a ) *Initial filing and service.* A request for hearing must be filed with the FAA Hearing Docket, and a copy must be served on the official who issued the notice of proposed action, in accordance with the requirements in § 13.43 for filing and service of documents. The request for hearing must be in writing and describe the action proposed by the FAA, and must contain a statement that a hearing is requested under this subpart.
( b ) *Complaint.* Within 20 days after service of the copy of the request for hearing, the official who issued the notice of proposed action must forward a copy of that notice, which serves as the complaint, to the FAA Hearing Docket.
( c ) *Answer.* Within 30 days after service of the copy of the complaint, the Respondent must file an answer to the complaint. All allegations in the complaint not specifically denied in the answer are deemed admitted.
###### Editorial Note on Part 1251

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 1251 appear at 81 FR 3709, Jan. 22, 2016.

#### § 1251.108 Administrative requirements for small recipients.

The Associate Administrator may require any recipient with fewer than 15 employees, or any class of such recipients, to comply with §§ 1251.106 and 1251.107, in whole or in part, when the Associate Administrator finds a violation of this part or finds that such compliance will not significantly impair the ability of the recipient or class of recipients to provide benefits or services.

[51 FR 26862, July 28, 1986, as amended at 81 FR 3711, Jan. 22, 2016]
#### § 151.121 Procedures: Offer; sponsor assurances.

Each sponsor must adopt the following covenant implementing the exclusive rights provisions of section 308(a) of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, that is incorporated by reference into Part I of the Advance Planning Agreement:

The sponsor—

(a) Will not grant or permit any exclusive right forbidden by section 308(a) of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 (49 U.S.C. 1349(a)) at the airport, or at any other airport now or hereafter owned or controlled by it;

(b) Agrees that, in furtherance of the policy of the FAA under this covenant, unless authorized by the Administrator, it will not, either directly or indirectly, grant or permit any person, firm or corporation the exclusive right at the airport, or at any other airport now or hereafter owned or controlled by it, to conduct any aeronautical activities, including, but not limited to, charter flights, pilot training, aircraft rental and sightseeing, aerial photography, crop dusting, aerial advertising and surveying, air carrier operations, aircraft sales and services, sale of aviation petroleum products whether or not conducted in conjunction with other aeronautical activity, repair and maintenance of aircraft, sale of aircraft parts, and any other activities which because of their direct relationship to the operation of aircraft can be regarded as an aeronautical activity;

(c) Agrees that it will terminate any existing exclusive right to engage in the sale of gasoline or oil, or both, granted before July 17, 1962, at such an airport, at the earliest renewal, cancellation, or expiration date applicable to the agreement that established the exclusive right; and

(d) Agrees that it will terminate any other exclusive right to conduct any aeronautical activity now existing at such an airport before the grant of any assistance under the Federal Airport Act.

[Amdt. 151-30, 34 FR 3656, Mar. 1, 1969, as amended by Amdt. 151-32, 34 FR 9617, June 19, 1969]
§ 157.1 Applicability. This part applies to persons proposing to construct, alter, activate, or deactivate a civil or joint-use (civil/military) airport or to alter the status or use of such an airport. Requirements for persons to notify the Administrator concerning certain airport activities are prescribed in this part. This part does not apply to projects involving: ( a ) An airport subject to conditions of a Federal agreement that requires an approved current airport layout plan to be on file with the Federal Aviation Administration; or
( b ) An airport at which flight operations will be conducted under visual flight rules (VFR) and which is used or intended to be used for a period of less than 30 consecutive days with no more than 10 operations per day.
( c ) The intermittent use of a site that is not an established airport, which is used or intended to be used for less than one year and at which flight operations will be conducted only under VFR. For the purposes of this part, *intermittent use of a site* means: ( 1 ) The site is used or is intended to be used for no more than 3 days in any one week; and
( 2 ) No more than 10 operations will be conducted in any one day at that site.
1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BANKRUPTCY COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

In re:

PROMESA

THE FINANCIAL OVERSIGHT AND Title III

MANAGEMENT BOARD FOR PUERTO RICO, 

 as a representative of No. 17 BK 3283-LTS

THE COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO, et al. (Jointly Administered)

Debtors

 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE

TO THE HONORABLE COURT:

NOW comes creditors MARTA VÁZQUEZ TORRES, NEFTALY MÉNDEZ VÁZQUEZ, 

JOSEPH NEGRÓN VÁZQUEZ, and the SUCCESSION of ARMANDO NEGRÓN VÁZQUEZ

comprised by his heirs, RAYMOND ARMANDO NEGRÓN LÓPEZ and ALONDRA JANISSE 

NEGRÓN SANTANA (represented by their respective mothers, YESENIA INÉS LÓPEZ OSORIO 

and KATHIRIA JANISSE SANTANA PONCE), all represented by the undersigned attorney, to 

state as follows.

That pursuant to provisions of Rule 9010(b) of Bankruptcy Procedure, the appearing party 

notifies that it has retained the legal services of Osvaldo Toledo Martinez whose address is:

Osvaldo Toledo Martínez

PO Box 190938

San Juan PR 00919-0938

E-Mail: toledo.bankruptcy@gmail.com

Telephone No.: (787) 756-6395

Fax No.: (787) 767-7965

WHEREFORE, the appearing party respectfully prays that the Clerk of the Court takes notice of 

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3364 Filed:06/29/18 Entered:06/29/18 01:39:34 Desc: Main

Document Page 1 of 2
2

the appearance of the undersigned attorney and to notify him of all the proceedings in this case, 

including but not limited to copies of the petition, schedules, motions, and statements filed or to be filed 

in the above-referenced case and further prays that the name and address be added to the Master 

Address List kept in the above-captioned case.

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and exact copy of the foregoing was filed electronically with 

the clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which in turn will send notification of such filing to all 

interested parties of record.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.

At San Juan, Puerto Rico, this June 28, 2018.

/S/ Osvaldo Toledo Martínez

OSVALDO TOLEDO MARTÍNEZ, ESQ.

USDC No. 127905

PO Box 190938

San Juan PR 00919-0938

Tel: (787) 756-6395

Fax: (787) 767-7965

E-Mail: toledo.bankruptcy@gmail.com

Counsel for Creditors

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3364 Filed:06/29/18 Entered:06/29/18 01:39:34 Desc: Main

Document Page 2 of 2
946 P.2d 464

#### Charles Lamar MILLER/Maricopa County Public Defender v. Hon. Michael WILKINSON-Mar Co Sup Ct/State ex rel Romley.

No. CV-97-0349-PR.

Supreme Court of Arizona.

Oct. 21, 1997.

ORDERED: Petition for Review DENIED.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-14-00344-CV

Blaine Standiford, Appellant

v.

CitiMortgage, Inc.; Merscorp Holdings, Inc.; Vendor Resource Management;

and Juanita Strickland, Appellees

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 126TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. D-1-GN-12-003709, HONORABLE GISELA D. TRIANA, JUDGE PRESIDING

O R D E R

PER CURIAM

Appellant Blaine Standiford has filed an agreed motion to dismiss appellee

Vendor Resource Management from this appeal. Accordingly, we grant the motion and dismissthis

appeal to the extent that it was brought against appellee Vendor Resource Management. See Tex.

R. App. P. 42.1. Further, we direct the clerk of this Court to re-style the caption of the instant appeal

as follows:

Blaine Standiford, Appellant

v.

CitiMortgage, Inc. and Merscorp Holdings, Inc., Appellees

It is so ordered September 30, 2014.

Before Chief Justice Jones, Justices Rose and Goodwin
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**793 KA 14-00513** 
PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., PERADOTTO, CARNI, VALENTINO, AND WHALEN, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

ALBERT J. WEBBER, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

JAMES S. KERNAN, PUBLIC DEFENDER, LYONS (RICHARD W. YOUNGMAN OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

RICHARD M. HEALY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, LYONS (BRUCE A. ROSEKRANS OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from an order of the Wayne County Court (John B. Nesbitt, J.), entered January 15, 2014. The order directed defendant to pay restitution in the amount of $10,330.

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously vacated.

Memorandum: Defendant was convicted upon his plea of guilty of, inter alia, criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree (Penal Law § 165.40). County Court sentenced him to a term of incarceration and scheduled a hearing to determine the amount of restitution to be imposed. Defendant did not appeal from the original judgment of conviction and now appeals from the order of restitution entered following a hearing. We note at the outset that, because the court bifurcated the sentencing proceeding by severing the issue of restitution for a separate hearing, defendant properly appeals as of right from the order of restitution ( see People v Connolly , 100 AD3d 1419, 1419; People v Brusie , 70 AD3d 1395, 1396).

We agree with defendant that the court erred in imposing restitution based on the evidence presented at the restitution hearing. “Restitution may be based only on ‘the offense for which a defendant was convicted, as well as any other offense that is part of the same criminal transaction or that is contained in any other accusatory instrument disposed of by any plea of guilty’ ” ( People v Visser , 256 AD2d 1106, 1107, quoting Penal Law § 60.27 [4] [a]). Upon our review of the record, we conclude that the testimony of the owner of the stolen property that was the subject of the restitution hearing was insufficient to establish that such stolen property was part of the same criminal transaction as the stolen property that was the subject of defendant’s plea of guilty, i.e., two pieces of blue painted steel. Indeed, no evidence was presented at the hearing**-2- 793 KA 14-00513** 

establishing that defendant’s acquisition of the two pieces of blue painted steel found in his possession was part of the same criminal transaction involving the theft of numerous other items for which restitution was ordered. We conclude that “the court erred in imposing restitution arising from a charge of [larceny] because that charge was not contained in the indictment, nor was it related to an offense that was ‘part of the same criminal transaction or . . . contained in any other accusatory instrument disposed of by’ defendant’s plea of guilty to the offense on appeal” ( People v Moore
, 124 AD3d 1386, 1387). We therefore vacate the order on appeal.

Entered: June 19, 2015 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
Exhibit 10.30


 


FIRST AMENDMENT TO
EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


 


Kim S. Brace


 


 


This First Amendment to Employment Agreement
(“Amendment”) is made as of April 22, 2003, between PACIFIC NORTHWEST
BANCORP and its subsidiary, PACIFIC NORTHWEST BANK (individually and collectively
referred to as “Bank”) and KIM S. BRACE (“Executive”), who agree as follows:


 


1.         Extension. 
Bank has requested Executive, and Executive has agreed to extend the
term of her Employment Agreement with Bank dated as of June 15, 2001 (the
“Employment Agreement”) for an additional two years to June 15, 2005.  The second sentence of Section 2 of the
Employment Agreement is amended and revised to read as follows:


 


The term of this
Agreement begins on June 16, 2001, and terminates on June 15, 2005
(“Term”).


 


2.         Health Care Insurance Coverage.  In addition to any severance or other
payments due to Executive pursuant to the Employment Agreement, Bank shall pay all premiums for the
continuation of health care coverage benefits to Executive and her covered spouse
and dependents pursuant to the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act
(COBRA) for a period of up to eighteen (18) months after the termination of
Executive’s employment with Bank or its
successor (including employment with any parent company or subsidiary under
common control with Bank or its successor) other than a termination for
Cause in the event that either: (a) a Change of Control (as defined in
Bank’s Change of Control Agreements with certain other key executives) occurs
and Executive does not continue to be employed by Bank or its successor
(including employment with any parent company or subsidiary under common
control with Bank or its successor) for more than thirty (30) months after the
closing of the transaction, or (b) upon the retirement of Executive if, on
the date of retirement, Executive is at least sixty (60) years of age and has
been employed by Bank and/or its successor
(including employment with any parent company or subsidiary under common
control with Bank or its successor) for at least five (5) years.


 


3.         Except as expressly modified hereby, the terms and
provisions of the Employment Agreement shall continue and remain in full force
and effect.
EXHIBIT 32.2



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the
Annual Report of Global Crossing Limited (the Company) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, J John A.
Kritzmacher, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



(2) The information contained in the Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                                                         
|---------------------------------------------------------
|/s/    John A. Kritzmacher                               
|John A. Kritzmacher Chief Financial
Officer March 3, 2009
§ 135.267 Flight time limitations and rest requirements: Unscheduled one- and two-pilot crews. ( a ) No certificate holder may assign any flight crewmember, and no flight crewmember may accept an assignment, for flight time as a member of a one- or two-pilot crew if that crewmember's total flight time in all commercial flying will exceed— ( 1 ) 500 hours in any calendar quarter.
( 2 ) 800 hours in any two consecutive calendar quarters.
( 3 ) 1,400 hours in any calendar year.
( b ) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, during any 24 consecutive hours the total flight time of the assigned flight when added to any other commercial flying by that flight crewmember may not exceed— ( 1 ) 8 hours for a flight crew consisting of one pilot; or
( 2 ) 10 hours for a flight crew consisting of two pilots qualified under this part for the operation being conducted.
( c ) A flight crewmember's flight time may exceed the flight time limits of paragraph (b) of this section if the assigned flight time occurs during a regularly assigned duty period of no more than 14 hours and— ( 1 ) If this duty period is immediately preceded by and followed by a required rest period of at least 10 consecutive hours of rest;
( 2 ) If flight time is assigned during this period, that total flight time when added to any other commercial flying by the flight crewmember may not exceed— ( i ) 8 hours for a flight crew consisting of one pilot; or
( ii ) 10 hours for a flight crew consisting of two pilots; and
( 3 ) If the combined duty and rest periods equal 24 hours.
( d ) Each assignment under paragraph (b) of this section must provide for at least 10 consecutive hours of rest during the 24-hour period that precedes the planned completion time of the assignment.
( e ) When a flight crewmember has exceeded the daily flight time limitations in this section, because of circumstances beyond the control of the certificate holder or flight crewmember (such as adverse weather conditions), that flight crewmember must have a rest period before being assigned or accepting an assignment for flight time of at least— ( 1 ) 11 consecutive hours of rest if the flight time limitation is exceeded by not more than 30 minutes;
( 2 ) 12 consecutive hours of rest if the flight time limitation is exceeded by more than 30 minutes, but not more than 60 minutes; and
( 3 ) 16 consecutive hours of rest if the flight time limitation is exceeded by more than 60 minutes.
( f ) The certificate holder must provide each flight crewmember at least 13 rest periods of at least 24 consecutive hours each in each calendar quarter.
[Doc. No. 23634, 50 FR 29320, July 18, 1985, as amended by Amdt. 135-33, 54 FR 39294, Sept. 25, 1989; Amdt. 135-60, 61 FR 2616, Jan. 26, 1996]
Editorial Note on Part 221
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 221 appear at 84 FR 15929, Apr. 16, 2019.

§ 221.131 Form of application for waivers. Applications for waivers shall be in the form of a letter addressed to the Office of International Aviation, Department of Transportation Washington, DC 20590, and shall: ( a ) Specify (by section and paragraph) the particular regulation which the applicant desires the Department to waive.
( b ) Show in detail how the proposed provisions will be shown in the tariff under authority of such waiver if granted (submitting exhibits of the proposed provision where necessary to clearly show this information).
( c ) Set forth all facts and circumstances on which the applicant relies as warranting the Department's granting the authority requested. No tariff or other documents shall be filed pursuant to such application prior to the Department's granting the authority requested.
##### 



Exhibit 21.1
 SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT
 STATE/JURISDICTION OFINCORPORATION/
    
    NAME UNDER WHICHNAME OF SUBSIDIARY
    
    ORGANIZATION
    
    BUSINESS IS CONDUCTEDQuicksilver Resources Canada Inc.
    
    Canada
    
    Quicksilver Resources Canada Inc.Mercury Michigan, Inc.
    
    Michigan
    
    Mercury Michigan, Inc.Beaver Creek Pipeline, L.L.C.
    
    Michigan
    
    Beaver Creek Pipeline, L.L.C.Terra Energy Ltd.
    
    Michigan
    
    Terra Energy Ltd.GTG Pipeline Corporation
    
    Virginia
    
    GTG Pipeline CorporationCowtown Pipeline Funding, Inc.
    
    Delaware
    
    Cowtown Pipeline Funding, Inc.Cowtown Pipeline Management, Inc.
    
    Texas
    
    Cowtown Pipeline Management, Inc.Cowtown Pipeline LP
    
    Texas
    
    Cowtown Pipeline LPCowtown Gas Processing LP
    
    Texas
    
    Cowtown Gas Processing LPCowtown Pipeline Partners LP
    
    Texas
    
    Cowtown Pipeline Partners LPCowtown Gas Processing Partners LP
    
    Texas
    
    Cowtown Gas Processing Partners LP
Editorial Note on Part 21
Editorial Notes: 1. For miscellaneous amendments to cross references in this 21 see Amdt. 21-10, 31 FR 9211, July 6, 1966. 2. Nomenclature changes to part 21 appear at 74 FR 53384, Oct. 16, 2009.

§ 21.620 Changes in quality system. After the issuance of a TSO authorization— ( a ) Each change to the quality system is subject to review by the FAA; and
( b ) The holder of the TSO authorization must immediately notify the FAA, in writing, of any change that may affect the inspection, conformity, or airworthiness of its article.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-7529

BOBBY SESSIONS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Charleston. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District

Judge. (CA-95-110-2-20AJ)

Submitted: January 11, 1996 Decided: January 24, 1996

Before RUSSELL, HALL, and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Bobby Sessions, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief

Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1988) petition. Appellant's case was

referred to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B)

(1988). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and

advised Appellant that failure to file timely objections to this

recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court

order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Appellant failed to object to the magistrate judge's recommendation.

The timely filing of objections to a magistrate judge's

recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the

substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned

that failure to object will waive appellate review. Wright v.

Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985). See generally Thomas

v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Appellant has waived appellate review

by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice. We

accordingly deny a certificate of probable cause to appeal and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
<PAGE>

                                                                 EXHIBIT 10.32.1

FIRST AMENDMENT TO COMMUNICATIONS & POWER INDUSTRIES 2000 STOCK OPTION PLAN

Section 3 of the Communications & Power Industries 2000 Stock Option Plan is
hereby amended and restated in its entirety to read as follows:

3. SHARES SUBJECT TO THE PLAN. The shares to be sold upon the exercise of Stock
Options awarded under this Plan shall consist of the Company's authorized but
unissued Common Stock. Subject to adjustment as provided in Section 6 hereof,
the aggregate number of shares of Common Stock which may be sold upon the
exercise of Stock Options awarded to Participants pursuant to Section 5 below
shall not exceed 350,000 of such shares (the "Option Shares"). Option Shares
subject to Stock Options that lapse or terminate without exercise shall be
available to be subject to newly issued Stock Options under the Plan. A holder
of Option Shares upon the exercise of his or her Stock Options shall be entitled
to all rights (including voting and dividend rights) of a holder of Common Stock
of the Company.
OFFICE OF THE A-ITORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

/’ AUSTIN 
it rotid b8 2romr r0r the orriaials to in8tmm pToSeelltloa8 ror treap888lng. 

Yoursverytruly 

Iamamb 

APPROVEDm 21, l%jg 

$+-u?$-- 

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS