alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
AAM-13-416-E

June 24, 2013

 Exemption No. 10807

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2013-0512

Mr. David Powell

Summit Aviation, LLC

2440 SW Aviation Street

Bentonville, AR 72712

Dear Mr. Powell:

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your request for exemption. It transmits our 

decision, explains its basis, and gives you the conditions and limitations of the exemption, 

including the date it ends.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter dated May 23, 2013, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on 

behalf of Summit Aviation (Summit) for an exemption from part 120 of Title 14, Code of 

Federal Regulations (14 CFR) to the extent necessary to allow Summit to cover its safetysensitive employees under one drug and alcohol testing program.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition 

in the Federal Register because the requested exemption would not set a precedent, and any 

delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Summit.

The FAA has issued a grant of exemption in circumstances similar in all material respects to 

those presented in your petition. In Grant of Exemption No. 9703 (copy enclosed), the FAA 

found that Solid Edge’s § 91.147 air tour operations were closely connected to its part 135 

operations. The FAA also found that combining the petitioner’s two drug and alcohol testing 

programs into one would be in the public interest and would maintain an equivalent level of 

safety to that provided by the current regulations. Thus, the FAA concluded it was 

unnecessary to burden the petitioner by requiring it to conduct two separate testing programs.
2

Having reviewed your reasons for requesting an exemption, I find that—

• they are similar in all material respects to relief previously requested in the enclosed Grant 

of Exemption No. 9703;

• the reasons stated by the FAA for granting the enclosed Grant of Exemption No. 9703 also 

apply to the situation you present; and 

• a grant of exemption is in the public interest.

Our Decision

Under the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator 

has delegated to me, I hereby grant Summit Aviation, LLC an exemption from 14 CFR 

part 120 to the extent necessary to allow Summit to cover its safety-sensitive employees under 

one drug and alcohol testing program, subject to the conditions and limitations described 

below.

Conditions and Limitations 

1. Employees of Summit are subject to the drug and alcohol regulations at all times 

while conducting operations under part 135 or part 91.

2. The drug and alcohol program must be implemented under the same auspices of 

the Summit part 135 operation, not under part 91.

This exemption terminates on July 31, 2015, unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Sincerely,

/s/

Frederick E. Tilton, M. D.

Federal Air Surgeon

Enclosure
Case 9:22-cv-81868-XXXX   Document 1-1   Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2022   Page 1 of 5

Case 9:22-cv-81868-XXXX   Document 1-1   Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2022   Page 2 of 5

Case 9:22-cv-81868-XXXX   Document 1-1   Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2022   Page 3 of 5

Case 9:22-cv-81868-XXXX   Document 1-1   Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2022   Page 4 of 5

Case 9:22-cv-81868-XXXX   Document 1-1   Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2022   Page 5 of 5
§ 105-60.1008 Fees, expenses, and costs. ( a ) In consultation with the Appropriate Authority, a current employee who appears as a witness pursuant to a demand shall ensure that he or she receives all fees and expenses, including travel expenses, to which witnesses are entitled pursuant to rules applicable to the judicial or administrative proceedings out of which the demand arose.
( b ) Witness fees and reimbursement for expenses received by a GSA employee shall be disposed of in accordance with rules applicable to Federal employees in effect at the time.
( c ) Reimbursement to the GSA for costs associated with producing material pursuant to a demand shall be determined in accordance with rules applicable to the proceedings out of which the demand arose.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-29-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-29-1999
<CASH>                                          13,421
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   12,478
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     11,037
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                42,776
<PP&E>                                           5,389
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  52,681
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           15,557
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            58
<OTHER-SE>                                      37,066
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    52,681
<SALES>                                         72,658
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                72,658
<CGS>                                           45,889
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   76,228
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  (67)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (3,637)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (829)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,808)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,808)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (.49)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.49)


</TABLE>
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SCOTT BISHOP, individually and on

behalf of all others similarly situated,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

7-ELEVEN, INC.,

 Defendant - Appellee.

No. 14-15986

D.C. No. 5:12-cv-02621-EJD

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Edward J. Davila, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted May 11, 2016

San Francisco, California

Before: WARDLAW, PAEZ, and BEA, Circuit Judges.

Scott Bishop, a consumer of 7-Eleven brand potato chips, appeals the

dismissal of his second amended complaint (SAC) pursuant to Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we

reverse. 

FILED

JUN 07 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The district court erred by concluding that the SAC failed to allege facts

sufficient to establish statutory standing under California’s unfair competition law,

Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq., false advertising law, Cal. Bus. & Prof.

Code § 17500, and Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 1750, et seq. 

At this preliminary stage of the action, Bishop sufficiently alleged actual reliance,

which he was required to do under each of his theories because his claims sound in

fraud. See Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Court, 246 P.3d 877, 888 n.9 (Cal. 2011); In

re Tobacco II Cases, 207 P.3d 20, 39 n.17 (Cal. 2009). Bishop adequately alleged

that he relied on 7-Eleven’s potato chips’ front of package “0g trans fat” and “no

cholesterol” representations, and that he would not have purchased the chips had 7-

Eleven included on the front of the package the “See nutrition information for fat

content” disclosure required by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. See 21

C.F.R. §§ 101.13(h)(1), 101.62(d)(i)(ii)(D); see also Reid v. Johnson & Johnson,

780 F.3d 952, 958 (9th Cir. 2015) (“[T]he reasonable consumer standard, unlike

the individual reliance requirement . . . , is not a standing requirement.”). 

California’s consumer protection statutes render statements actionable which,

although not technically false, have a tendency to mislead consumers because the

statements fail to disclose or direct the consumer’s attention to other relevant

2
information. See Davis v. HSBC Bank Nevada, N.A., 691 F.3d 1152, 1162 (9th

Cir. 2012); Day v. AT&T Corp., 74 Cal. Rptr. 2d 55, 60 (Ct. App. 1998). 

REVERSED. 

3
#### § 105-72.800 Purpose.

Sections 105-72.801 through 105-72.803 contain closeout procedures and other procedures for subsequent disallowances and adjustments.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

In the Matter of

STUART I. RICH :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 2 52 3 Disciplinary Docket No. 3

Board File No. C 1

- 18

- 611

(Supreme Court of New Jersey, D

- 93 September Term 2017)

Attorney Registration No. 6 4547

(Out of State)

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 9 th day of October , 2018, having failed to respond to a Notice

and Order directing him to provide reasons against the imposition of reciprocal

discipline, Stuart I. Rich is suspended from the practice of law in the Commonwealth of

Pennsylvania for two years . He shall comply with all the provisions of Pa.R.D.E. 217.
Argued and submitted June 23,

reversed and remanded for reconsideration September 6, 1995

#### In the Matter of the Compensation of Joseph Parry, Claimant. Joseph PARRY, *Petitioner, v.*MARVIN WOOD PRODUCTS, INC., *Respondent.*

(WCB 93-14867; CA A86603)

901 P2d 920

Alan J. Schmeits argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the brief was Silven, Schmeits & Vaughan.

Vera Langer argued the cause for respondent. With her on the brief was Scheminske, Lyons & Bussman.

Before Deits, Presiding Judge, and De Muniz and Hasel-ton, Judges.

PER CURIAM

*537PER CURIAM

Claimant seeks review of a Workers’ Compensation Board order upholding employer’s denial of his current low back condition. The statutes pertinent to this review have been amended by Oregon Laws 1995, chapter 332. Because the amended version of the statutes is applicable here, we remand for reconsideration in the light of the new law. *Volk v. America West Airlines,*135 Or App 565, 899 P2d 746 (1995).

Reversed and remanded for reconsideration.
1

Ostigaard, Crystal

From: Rose Bender [rose@northernplains.org]

Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2013 3:42 PM

To: Ostigaard, Crystal

Subject: YVCC's comments on Yellowstone County SO2 nonattainment

Attachments: YVCCltrtoEPA2013-06-07.pdf

Dear Ms. Ostigaard, 

Thank you for accepting Yellowstone Valley Citizens Council's comments on SO2 nonattainment status for

Yellowstone County. They are attached. Please contact me with any questions. 

Thank you, 

Rose Bender 

-- 

Rose Bender Rose Bender 

Field Organizer 

Northern Plains Resource Council 

220 S. 27th Street, Suite A 

Billings, MT 59101 

Phone: 406.248.1154 ext.107 

Fax: 406.248.2110 

rose@northernplains.org

www.northernplains.org 

Right-click 

here to 

download 

pictures. To 

help protect 

your privacy, 

Outlo ok 

prevented 

auto matic 

download of 

this picture 

from the 

Internet.

Northern Plains Resource Council is a grassroots conservation and family agriculture group. We organize Montana citizens to 

protect our water quality, family farms and ranches, and unique quality of life. If you aren't a member, you should join!
§ 105-60.800 General provisions. ( a ) GSA shall charge for processing requests under the FOIA in accordance with the provisions of this section and with OMB Guidelines. For purposes of assessing fees, FOIA establishes three categories of requesters: ( 1 ) Commercial use requesters;
( 2 ) Noncommercial scientific or educational institutions or news media requesters; and
( 3 ) All other requesters.
( b ) Fees are assessed depending on the category GSA determines the requester falls under in subpart A of this part. Requesters may seek a fee waiver. GSA shall consider requests for fee waiver in accordance with the requirements in § 105-60.807 of this subpart. To resolve any fee issues that arise under this section, GSA may contact a requester for additional information. GSA shall ensure that searches, review, and duplication of FOIA records are conducted in the most efficient and the least expensive manner.
( c ) GSA shall collect all applicable fees before sending copies of records to a requester. Requesters pay fees by check, credit card, or money order made payable to the U.S. General Services Administration, or by another method as determined by GSA.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                       2,506,981
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,976,604
<ALLOWANCES>                                 (248,305)
<INVENTORY>                                    259,459
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             6,801,188
<PP&E>                                       1,094,478
<DEPRECIATION>                               (378,114)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,096,350
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,402,148
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     1,088,251
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,394,553
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,096,350
<SALES>                                      3,984,514
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,984,514
<CGS>                                        2,651,706
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,754,413
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (395,331)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       250
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (395,581)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.09)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.09)
        


</TABLE>
MARVIN KNIGHT

,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 16

- 0 803

__________ ___________________/

Opinion filed June 20, 2016.

An appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Leon County

. Angela C. Dempsey , Judge

.

Marvin Knight , pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Jillian H. Reding, Assistant Attorney

Gen eral, Tallahassee , for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

THOMAS, WETHERELL, and WINSOR, JJ., CONCUR.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-27-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             MAR-28-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-28-1999
<CASH>                                           7,330
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   18,408
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,468
<INVENTORY>                                     19,065
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                43,168
<PP&E>                                          16,860
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,555
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  52,601
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           27,497
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        21,818
<OTHER-SE>                                         936
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    52,601
<SALES>                                        135,713
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               135,713
<CGS>                                          130,249
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  143,643
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   712
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    10
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 845
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (8,642)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (3,104)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (5,538)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (5,538)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.61)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.61)


</TABLE>
§ 105-64.105 When may Social Security Numbers (SSNs) be collected? ( a ) Statutory or regulatory authority must exist for collecting Social Security Numbers for record systems that use the SSNs as a method of identification. Systems without statutory or regulatory authority implemented after January 1, 1975, will not collect Social Security Numbers.
( b ) In compliance with OMB M-07-16 (Safeguarding Against and Responding to the Breach of Personally Identifiable Information) collection and storage of SSN will be limited to systems where no other identifier is currently available. While GSA will strive to reduce the collection and storage of SSN and other PII we recognize that some systems continue to need to collect this information.
Exhibit 31.1


I, Gerard J. Arpey, certify that:

1. I  have  reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of American
   Airlines, 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 registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in
   this report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) 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 registrant 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
       registrant, 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 registrant'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 registrant's internal
       control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's
       most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in
       the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is
       reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal
       control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have
   disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control
   over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit
   committee of the registrant'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 registrant'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 registrant's
       internal control over financial reporting.



Date:  October 21, 2004            /s/ Gerard J. Arpey
                                   Gerard J. Arpey
                                   Chairman, President and Chief
                                   Executive Officer
#### § 102-85.80 Who is financially responsible for expenses resulting from tenant non-performance?

The customer agencies are financially responsible for expenses incurred by the Government as a result of any failure on their part to fulfill a commitment outlined in an OA or other written agreements in advance of, or in addition to, the OA. Customer agencies are also financially responsible for revised design costs and any additional costs resulting from changes to space requirements or space layouts made by the agency after a lease, alteration, design, or construction contract has been awarded by GSA.