alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### ST. PAUL FIRE and MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY v. U. C. SMITH

5-5993

482 S.W. 2d 122

Opinion delivered July 10, 1972

*Wright, Lindsey & Jennings,*by: *William R. Wilson Jr.,*for appellant.

*Robert D. Ridgeway,*for appellee.

Conley Byrd Justice.

The front wheel came off a passing automobile and caused $253.90 damages to appellee U.C. Smith’s building. Appellant St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company, for reversal of a summary judgment in favor of Smith, contends that Smith’s building was not struck by a “vehicle” within the policy definition.

The policy issued by appellant of Smith provided extended coverage to Smith “. . .against direct loss by. . .vehicles,. . .except as hereinafter provided.” The provision of the policy applicable to vehicles provides:

> “The term ‘vehicles,’ as used in this endorsement means vehicles running on land or tracks. . .Loss by aircraft or by vehicles shall include only direct loss resulting from actual physical contact of an aircraft or a vehicle with the property covered herein or with the building(s) containing the property covered hereunder, except that loss by aircraft includes direct loss by objects falling therefrom. . .”

*1073Since the policy insures only against’'direct loss resulting from actual physical contact of. . .a vehicle,” appellant argues that there is no indication of coverage for loss from damage by a detached wheel. As we read the language of the policy that “loss resulting from actual contact of . . .a vehicle” obviously includes, at least, those substantial and integral parts of an automobile necessary to its propulsion while being propelled along a highway. See Annotation 12 A.L.R. 2d 598, as to meaning of “Vehicles” within exception or coverage of insurance policies, icies.

In its reply brief appellant argues that the mention of detached objects with regard to airplanes, coupled with the lack of such mention with regard to vehicles, clearly implies that the policy provides coverage in the one case (airplane objects) but excludes coverage in the other (vehicle objects) which is here involved. The fallacy in this argument is that the policy language does not refer to items becoming detached from an airplane but only to objects falling from a plane. In view of such cases as *Brown*v. *Life & Casualty Ins. Co.,*LA. App., 146 So. 332 (1933), this language was necessary to provide coverage for cargo falling from an airplane.

Affirmed together with the allowance of an additional attorney’s fee of $500.
Attachment 29Case:17-03283-LTS   Doc#:24634-29   Filed:06/22/23   Entered:06/22/23 18:57:29    Desc: 

Attachment 29   Page 1 of 2

Case:17-03283-LTS   Doc#:24634-29   Filed:06/22/23   Entered:06/22/23 18:57:29    Desc: Attachment 29   Page 2 of 2
## J;~**~eechcraft**

All Models In Reply Refer to: 940-2012-00567 March 6, 20 12
U.S. Department ofTransportation Docket Operations West Building Ground Floor Room Wl2-140 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE. Washington, DC 20590 Hawker Beechcraft Corporation 10511 E
. Central Avenue Wichita, Kansas 67206 USA

Subject: Petition for an Exemption from Requirements of 14 CFR 47.69 (b) Permitting Restricted Use ofDealer's Aircraft Regi stration Certificates Outside ofthe United States Reference:

Dear Sir: 1.) Raytheon Aircraft Company Exemptions 6758, 7241, 7241 A 2.) Beech Aircraft Corporation Exemptions 5125 , 5125A, 5125B, 5125C 3.) Hawker Beechcraft Corporation Exemption 9510

In accordance with 14 CFR Part I 1.63 , Hawker Beechcraft Corporation (HBC) requests an exemption from the requirements of 14 CFR 47.69 (b), which states: " A Dealer's Aircraft Registration Certificate is valid only in connection with use ofaircraft

- (b) Within the United States, except when used to deliver to a foreign purchaser an aircraft displaying a temporary registration number and carrying an airworthiness certificate on which that number is written; " Hawker Beechcraft Corporation has been issued such exemptions in the past, as listed in Reference I, 2, and 3. The exemption HB C is now requesting is similar in nature, applicability, and scope to these past exemptions, as well as exemptions granted to other members ofthe general aviation industry. The granting ofthis request will not adversely affect safety, and will allow Hawker Beechcraft Corporation to use Dealer' s Aircraft Registration Certificates outside the United States for flight testing, sales demonstrations, and marketing of Hawker Beechcraft Corporation products. Additionally, the public interest will be served by increasing international awareness of U .S. general aviation products and technology. Resulting foreign aircraft sales will help improve the U.S. balance oftrade. Hawker Beechcraft Corporation was issued Dealer' s Registration Certificate Number D002889. Hawker Beechcraft Corporation agrees to abide by reasonable and customary conditions and limitations imposed by the granting ofthis request. Such limitations and conditions imposed in past exemptions included: I. Hawker Beechcraft Corporation mu st own the aircraft; 2. The aircraft must have temporary registration number or an assigned registration number affixed as provided in 14 CFR patt 45;Letter 940-2012-00567 Page 2 of2 3. Hawker Beechcraft Corporation must keep records ofeach international flight for one year after the aircraft return s to the United States
. Such records must contain the following information:
a. Registration number and Manufacture's serial number; b
. Dates ofdeparture and return to the United States, and c. General overseas itinerary. 4. A copy ofthe exemption must be carried in each aircraft operated outside the United States under the privileges ofthe exemption. Sincerely, HAWKER BEECHCRAFT CORPORATION

Randolph Shields, Director Safety and Certification RS/Iab
U.S. Department of

Transportation

Office of the Secretary

of Transportation

Ms. Evelyn Sahr

Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC

1747 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Twelfth Floor

Washington, D.C. 20006

Dear Ms. Sahr:

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E.

Washington, D.C. 20590

January 28, 2010

We have reviewed the application filed December 2,2009, as supplemented, by Aviation

Matters, Inc. d/b/a PacificFlier (PacificFlier) for an exemption pursuant to 49 U.S.C. §40109 and

a foreign air carrier permit. This review has revealed the need for additional and/or clarifying

information before we can complete processing PacificFlier's application. To enable us to

proceed with our review, we ask that you provide the following information:

In its application, supplemental submissions, and reply to the answer of Continental

Micronesia, PacificFlier requests authority to engage in "non-scheduled" foreign air

transportation of persons, property, and mail. It is the Department's policy to no longer

grant non-scheduled authority, therefore we request that PacificFlier clarify whether it

wishes to engage in scheduled or charter services, consistent with Department policy.

(Note that the carrier's homeland license must provide for the type of authority

requested.) -

Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. As it is standard Department practice, we are

placing a copy of this letter, and ask that you file your response, in Docket DOT-OST-2009-

0319.

Sincerely,

.~

George L. Wellington

Chief, Foreign Air Carrier Licensing Division

Office of International Aviation

cc: Docket DOT-OST-2009-0319

R. Bruce Keiner, Jr.

Counsel for Continental Micronesia, Inc.

Crowell & Moring LLP

1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC 20004
Exhibit 31.2

SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION

I, Barry W. Tackett, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report of Consolidated Energy, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of
a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the
statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects
the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small
business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The small business issuer's other certifying officer and I are responsible
for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as
defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business
issuer and have:
 (a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer,
including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within
those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared;
 (b) evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
 (c) disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer's
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small
business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's
fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business
issuer's internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The small business issuer's other certifying officer and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of
the small business issuer's board of directors (or persons performing the
equivalent functions):
 (a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the small business issuer's ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial information; and
 (b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting.

Date: March 30, 2004

/s/Barry W. Tackett
Barry W. Tackett, CFO (Principal Financial Officer)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>  5
<LEGEND>     THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION
             EXTRACTED FROM THE CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF SEPTEMBER 30,
             1999 AND THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR
             THE YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
             ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>1000

<S>                                                        <C>
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                          SEP-25-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                             SEP-27-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                               SEP-25-1999
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                              12-MOS
<CASH>                                                         2,084
<SECURITIES>                                                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                 83,300
<ALLOWANCES>                                                  37,006
<INVENTORY>                                                   45,531
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                             104,828
<PP&E>                                                        16,556
<DEPRECIATION>                                                10,524
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                               211,521
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                         67,481
<BONDS>                                                            0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                              0
<PREFERRED>                                                        0
<COMMON>                                                          14
<OTHER-SE>                                                    61,931
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                 211,521
<SALES>                                                      172,181
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                             179,776
<CGS>                                                         92,589
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                 92,589
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                              64,128
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                             1,050
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                               22,009
<INCOME-TAX>                                                   9,272
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                           12,737
<DISCONTINUED>                                                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                    0
<CHANGES>                                                          0
<NET-INCOME>                                                  12,737
<EPS-BASIC>                                                   0.88
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                   0.86


</TABLE>
###### Editorial Note on Part 294

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 294 appear at 84 FR 15934, Apr. 16, 2019.

#### § 294.40 Aircraft accident liability insurance requirements.

No Canadian charter air taxi operator shall engage in charter air service unless such carrier has and maintains in effect aircraft accident liability coverage that meets the requirements of part 205 of this chapter. Evidence of such insurance coverage, in the form of a certificate of insurance, as required in part 205 of this chapter, shall be maintained on file with the Department's Office of International Aviation, U.S. Air Carrier Licensing/Special Authorities Division, at all times.

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 3024-0050)

[ER-1257, 46 FR 52591, Oct. 27, 1981, as amended by ER-1342, 48 FR 31015, July 6, 1983; Doc. No. 47939, 57 FR 40102, Sept. 2, 1992; 60 FR 43526, Aug. 22, 1995; 71 FR 49347, Aug. 23, 2006]
§ 27.361 Engine torque. ( a ) For turbine engines, the limit torque may not be less than the highest of— ( 1 ) The mean torque for maximum continuous power multiplied by 1.25;
( 2 ) The torque required by § 27.923;
( 3 ) The torque required by § 27.927; or
( 4 ) The torque imposed by sudden engine stoppage due to malfunction or structural failure (such as compressor jamming).
( b ) For reciprocating engines, the limit torque may not be less than the mean torque for maximum continuous power multiplied by— ( 1 ) 1.33, for engines with five or more cylinders; and
( 2 ) Two, three, and four, for engines with four, three, and two cylinders, respectively.
[Amdt. 27-23, 53 FR 34210, Sept. 2, 1988]
EXHIBIT 32.1





SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER



I, Robert M. Budd, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the periodic report, to which this Statement is attached, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the periodic report to which this Statement is attached, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the registrant.



A signed original of this written statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the SEC upon request.







Date:  October 19, 2009

By: /s/ Robert M. Budd



Robert M. Budd



Chief Executive Officer
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. Cir. Cir. R. 36.3.

** After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously to honor the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. Cir. Cir. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### MAY 9 1997 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

MORRIS D. HAUGHTON, Petitioner-Appellant,

v. No. 96-6333 KATHLEEN M. HAWK, Director U.S. Bureau of Prisons, and RON G. THOMPSON, Warden, Respondents-Appellees. (D.C. No. 96-CV-25-R) (W. D. Okla.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before TACHA, BALDOCK, and LUCERO, Circuit Judges. **

Petitioner-Appellant Morris D. Haughton appeals the district court’s entry of summary judgment against him on his claim that his constitutional rights were violated1 While it is true that we need not apply the procedural bar when the interests

of justice so dictate, see Moore v. United States , 950 F.2d 656, 659 (10th Cir. 1991), Appellant advances no argument, and we see no reason, why this is such a case. 2 when the Bureau of Prisons refused to reduce his sentence after he participated in a substance abuse program because the crime of which he was convicted was a crime of violence. We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. However, as Appellant has waived his claims, we will not address the merits of his appeal. This circuit predicates a petitioner’s right to appeal the factual and legal issues found by a magistrate and adopted by a district court upon his compliance with the procedural requirement that he file a timely and specific objection to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. See United States v. One Parcel , 73 F.3d 1057, 1060 (10th Cir.), cert. denied , Hobbs v. United States , 117 S. Ct. 271 (1996). As the docket sheet and district court order for this matter make quite clear, Appellant filed no such objection. His failure waived his right to contest those findings. See Moore v. United States , 950 F.2d 656, 659 (10th Cir. 1991). Accordingly, after careful review of the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation, the district court’s order, the briefs, and the record, we affirm the district court without reaching the merits of the dispute. 1
AFFIRMED. Entered for the Court, Bobby R. Baldock Circuit Judge
EXHIBIT 3 

FILED UNDER SEAL 

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3497-3 Filed:07/12/18 Entered:07/12/18 19:58:03 Desc:

Exhibit 3 - Filed Under Seal Page 1 of 1
<PAGE>

                                 Exhibit 10.13

                                LARRY A. HEATON
                                 P. O. BOX 397
                            COLLINSVILLE, VA  24078
                                 540-647-1425


                               November 15, 2000



Mr. C. R. McCullar
President and CEO
Smith River Bankshares, Inc.
730 East Church Street, Suite 12
P. O. Box 1224
Martinsville, VA  24114

Dear Andy:

     Thank you for the opportunity to meet with you and Bill on Monday.  Based
on our conversations, the following sets forth the terms under which I agree to
provide consultant services to your Company.

     The intent is to study/research the Franklin County market to determine the
feasibility of establishing a locally-named and operated unit bank of Smith
River Bankshares, Inc.

     I would propose that I would commence the study immediately and complete
and submit to you my written report no later than December 15, 2000.

     The scope of the work would include the following:

  .  Accumulation and analysis of historical deposit information for the entire
     Franklin County market.

  .  Identification of potential branch sites.

  .  Identification of potential talent for staffing.

  .  Conversation with select individuals to determine the "current climate" and
     potential ability to raise capital dollars.

  .  Preparation of a pro forma bank application, i.e., balance sheet and income
     statement (would propose to work with Brenda Smith to accomplish this).
<PAGE>

     Upon completion, a summary report with specific action plans or
recommendations will be prepared for your review.

     A flat fee of 46,400 would be charged.  This would include all expenses.  I
would request that payment in full be made on January 2, 2001.

     I agree that all information I receive in connection with the performance
of my duties as a consultant for your Company, regardless of the source,
including but not limited to information I receive about your Company and its
strategic objectives, will be kept confidential and will not be disclosed to any
person or entity at any time without your express, prior authorization and will
be used solely for the benefit of your Company. I will also not disclose to
anyone the fact that I am engaged as a consultant for the Company. My
obligations of confidentiality hereunder will continue for 5 years from the date
of this letter.

     This attempts to set forth general guidelines. It is understood that
modifications may be necessary as we move forward. All modifications will be in
writing and signed by both parties.

     I look forward to working with you to determine the feasibility of this
expansion opportunity.


                                        Sincerely,



                                        Larry A. Heaton


Agrees to and acknowledged this _____ day of November, 20001.



______________________________________
C. R. McCullar, President and CEO
Smith River Bankshares, Inc.
§ 29.625 Fitting factors. For each fitting (part or terminal used to join one structural member to another) the following apply: ( a ) For each fitting whose strength is not proven by limit and ultimate load tests in which actual stress conditions are simulated in the fitting and surrounding structures, a fitting factor of at least 1.15 must be applied to each part of— ( 1 ) The fitting;
( 2 ) The means of attachment; and
( 3 ) The bearing on the joined members.
( b ) No fitting factor need be used— ( 1 ) For joints made under approved practices and based on comprehensive test data (such as continuous joints in metal plating, welded joints, and scarf joints in wood); and
( 2 ) With respect to any bearing surface for which a larger special factor is used.
( c ) For each integral fitting, the part must be treated as a fitting up to the point at which the section properties become typical of the member.
( d ) Each seat, berth, litter, safety belt, and harness attachment to the structure must be shown by analysis, tests, or both, to be able to withstand the inertia forces prescribed in § 29.561(b)(3) multiplied by a fitting factor of 1.33.
[Doc. No. 5084, 29 FR 16150, Dec. 3, 1964, as amended by Amdt. 29-42, 63 FR 43285, Aug. 12, 1998]