alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
- 1 - Alexander Van der Bellen Managing Director and

Associate General Counsel

Delta Air Lines, Inc.

1212 New York Avenue NW Washington, DC 20005

202.842.4184

sascha.vanderbellen@delta.com

December 19, 2011

Mr. Dennis DeVany Chief, EAS & Domestic Analysis Division Office of Aviation Analysis Department of Transportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. Washington, DC 20590

Re: Service at Greenbrier/White Sulphur Springs, WV

Docket DOT-OST-2003-15553

Dear Mr. DeVany:

Delta provides service at Greenbrier/White Sulp hur Springs, WV (“Greenbrier”) through its Delta Connection partners ASA and Pinnacle. Delta’s Greenbr ier service is currently provided without government subsidy.

On December 16, 2011, Pinnacle and ASA filed 90 day termination notices for their services at Greenbrier. ASA currently flies daily nonstop from Atlanta; Pinnacle flies daily nonstop from New York (JFK). These services are incurring heavy losses. Booked load factors for January

are 24% on the Atlanta service and 6% on the JFK service.

To mitigate losses and reduce subsidy requirements, Delta is making service adjustments effective February 15, 2012. Delta will offer 10 weekly flights between Atlanta and Greenbrier on a one-stop basis via Roanoke, VA. Greenbrier also receives two nonstop weekly flights to Cleveland, for a total of 12 weekly flights. This service level meets Greenbrier’s EAS guarantee of 12 one-stop flights.

Delta understands that the Department has no objection to the substitution of additional ASA flights for Pinnacle flights provided that De lta causes the additional ASA services to be performed. Delta affirms that commitment.

Sincerely,

Alexander Van der Bellen Managing Director, Government Affairs

and Associate General Counsel

cc: Service ListCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

A copy of the foregoing has been served this 19 th day of December, 2011, upon the following

persons

via Federal Express:

The Honorable John Manchester Mayor City of Lewisburg 942 Washington Street, West Lewisburg, WV 24901

The Honorable Lloyd Haynes Mayor City Of White Sulphur Springs

34 W. Main St. White Sulphur Springs, WV 24986

via email:

Susan V. Chernenko

Director West Virginia Aeronautics Commission West Virginia Department of Transportation susan.v.chernenko@wv.gov

Jon Lindlief Director – Planning and Development

Atlantic Southeast Airlines jon.lindlief@flyasa.com

Phil Reed Vice-President, Network Scheduling, Operational Analytics & Engineering Pinnacle Airlines Corp. preed@pncl.com Mickey Bowman
Vice President of Essential Air Service Silver Airways mbowman@gulfstreamair.com

via email and Federal Express:

Jerry O’Sullivan Airport Manager Greenbrier Valley Airport 558 Airport Road Lewisburg, WV 24901 jerryosull@aol.com
MASTER OF SCIENCE 

STRATEGIC INFORMATION AND CYBERSPACE STUDIES

The Master of Science in Strategic Information and Cyberspace Studies Degree Program is a selective 

program that addresses the educational needs of defense and government leaders who seek to lead complex 

and diverse 21st Century organizations. Participants from across defense and other federal, state, and local 

government organizations create a learning community hallmarked by partnerships, information sharing, and 

network synergies.

The Master of Science in Strategic Information and Cyberspace Studies focuses on the information 

instrument of power and cyberspace. It provides graduate-level education to senior military and civilian 

leaders with an emphasis on the military, government, and private sector dimensions of information and 

cyberspace as a critical component of national security strategy. 

Important Facts:

• Tuition-Free for DoD 

Personnel (Military and

Civilian)

• Fully Remote and Part-Time

• Self-Nominated

Minimum Admission Requirements

• Bachelor’s Degree (3.0 GPA minimum)

• Federal Civil Service pay grade GS-13 equivalent or 

above.

• Military: 

• Enlisted: E-7 and above

• Chief Warrant Officer: CW3 and above

• Officer: O-4 and above

For more information refer 

to: Website: cic.ndu.edu

Phone number: 202-685-6300

Email: cicoss@ndu.edu

Attend our Monthly Virtual Open House for prospective students on the 4th Thursday of every month @ 1pm – 2pm EST

https://us.bbcollab.com/guest/886062331bd3403f8bd9a2ac591ddc3a or +1-571-392-7650 PIN: 125 656 9347

Successful graduates of the Master of Science in Strategic 

Information and Cyberspace Studies will be able to: 

• Evaluate the national security environment 

with a focus on the impact of the 

information instrument of power and 

cyberspace.

• Create information strategic and policy options 

that support joint warfighting and achieve national 

security objectives.

• Create cyber strategic and policy options that 

support joint warfighting and achieve national 

security objectives.

• Evaluate principles of the profession of arms, 

civil-military relations, and ethics to support 

strategic-level decision-making.

• Demonstrate strategic leadership to include 

effective communication and creative and critical 

thinking in a joint, interagency, and multinational 

environment.
No. 11-9222.

#### Garcia *v.*McDonald, Warden.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk April 27, 2010

y0419 

# Order

April 27, 2010

140358

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 140358 COA: 288217 Lake CC: 08-004622-FH DONALD NELSON CLEMENS, JR, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the November 19, 2009 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed October 30 ,

2012.

In The



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 12

- 00972

- CV

IN RE PAUL SHKEDY, G ARY SHKEDY , and WRAPTOR EQUIPMENT , Relator s

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING WRIT OF MANDAMUS On Appeal from the 80th District Court Harris County , Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2012

- 05211



### MEMORANDUM OPINION

On October 23, 2012, relator s Paul Shkedy, Gary Shkedy, and Wraptor Equipment filed a petition for writ of m andamus in this c ourt. See Tex. Gov’t Code §22. 221 ; see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the petition, relators ask this c ourt to compel the Honorable Larry
Weim an , presiding judge of the 80th District Court of Harris C ounty , to vacate or modify the temporary injunction signed August 8, 2012.2

Mandamus is an extr aordinary remedy that will issue only if (1) the trial court clearly abused its discretion and (2) the party requesting mandamus relief has no adequate remedy by appeal. In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am ., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135

– 36 (Tex. 2004). We determine the adequacy of an appellate remedy by balancing the benefits of mandamus review against its detriments. Id. at 136. In evaluating benefits and detriments, we consider whether mandamus will preserve important substantive and procedural rights from impairment or loss. Id. A ppellate courts must be mindful that the benefits of mandamus review are easily lost by overuse. Id. at 138.

A n interlocutory order grant ing a temporary injunction may be appealed. See Tex.
Civ. P rac. & Rem. Code § 51.014(a)(4). An aggrieved party’s remedy from a temporary injunction is by interlocutory appeal. Reynolds, Shannon, Miller, Blinn, White & Cook v. Flanary , 872 S.W.2d 248, 251 (Tex. App.

— Dallas 1993, no writ). Where the legislature
has created the right to bring an interlocutory ap peal, the remedy is adequate. In fact, the remedy by appeal is actually superior to filing a petition for writ of mandamus. Interlocutory appeals lie as of right and must be decided on the merits; mandamus , on the other hand, is an extraordinary remedy, no t issued as a matter of right, but at the
discretion of the court. Prudential , 148 S.W.3d at 138

. Therefore, relators are not entitled to mandamus relief because an adequate appellate remedy exists.
Accordingly, we deny relator s ’ petition for writ of manda mus.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Hedges and Justices Brown and Busby

.
§ 54.1607 Enrollment representative registration. Enrollment representative registration. A participating provider must require that enrollment representatives register with the Administrator before the enrollment representative can provide information directly or indirectly to the National Lifeline Accountability Database or the National Verifier. ( a ) As part of the registration process, participating providers must require that all enrollment representatives provide the Administrator with identifying information, which may include first and last name, date of birth, the last four digits of his or her social security number, email address, and residential address. Enrollment representatives will be assigned a unique identifier, which must be used for: ( 1 ) Accessing the National Lifeline Accountability Database;
( 2 ) Accessing the National Verifier;
( 3 ) Accessing any eligibility database; and
( 4 ) Completing any Emergency Broadband Benefit Program enrollment or verification forms.
( b ) Participating providers must ensure that enrollment representatives shall not use another person's unique identifier to enroll Emergency Broadband Benefit Program subscribers, recertify Emergency Broadband Benefit Program subscribers, or access the National Lifeline Accountability Database or National Verifier.
( c ) Participating providers must ensure that enrollment representatives shall regularly recertify their status with the Administrator to maintain their unique identifier and maintain access to the systems that rely on a valid unique identifier. Participating providers must also ensure that enrollment representatives shall update their registration information within 30 days of any change in such information.
#### Sherry B. BURTON, Petitioner, v. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, Respondent.

No. 04-3002.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

March 4, 2004.

ORDER

The parties having so agreed, it is

ORDERED that the proceeding is DISMISSED under Fed. RApp. P. 42(b).
No. 11-9941.

#### Shanks *v.*United States.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
<PAGE>

                                                               Exhibit 21

                                  AAF-McQuay Inc.
                                   Subsidiaries 
                                           
AMG Holdings B.V. (The Netherlands)
AMG Holdings N.V. (The Netherlands)
AAF-McQuay Group Inc. (Delaware)
AAF-McQuay Inc. (Delaware)
AAF-McQuay Holdings Inc. (Texas)
AAF-McQuay Export Inc. (Barbados)
American Air Filter Company, Inc. (Delaware)
McQuay-Perfex Export Co. (Minnesota)
AAF-McQuay International Inc.(Delaware)
McQuay-TPC Corp. (Delaware)
AAF-McQuay Canada Inc. (Canada)
AAF Luftreinigungssyteme Gesellschaft m.b.H. (Austria)
AAF-SA (Belgium)
AAF-SA (France)
AAF-McQuay Holding France (France)
AAF-McQuay France (France)
McQuay France (France)
AAF Luftechnik GmbH (Germany)
Beth Luftechnik GmbH (Germany)
AAF Environmental Control E.P.E. (Greece)
AAF S.r.l. (Italy)
McQuay Europa S.r.l. (Italy)
McQuay Italia S.p.A. (Italy)
AAF, S.A. (Spain)
AAF-International B.V. (The Netherlands)
AAF-McQuay Netherlands B.V. ( The Netherlands)
AAF Hava Filtreleri Ve Ticaret A.S. (Turkey)
AAF-Limited (United Kingdom)
AAF-McQuay UK Limited (United Kingdom)
J & E Hall Limited (United Kingdom)
Coulstock & Place Engineering Co. Limited (United Kingdom)
AAF Pty. Ltd. (Australia)
AAF S.A. de C.V. (Mexico)
AAF (Asia) Pte Limited (Singapore)
Purificaction de Aire Venezolana, C.A. (Venezuela)
American Air Filter Brazil Ltda. (Brazil)
AAF-Korea Company, Ltd. (Korea)
TriState McQuay (Delaware)
§ 25.146 Licensing and operating provisions for NGSO FSS space stations. ( a ) An NGSO FSS applicant proposing to operate in the 10.7-30 GHz frequency range must certify that it will comply with: ( 1 ) Any applicable power flux-density levels in Article 21, Section V, Table 21-4 of the ITU Radio Regulations (incorporated by reference, § 25.108), except that in the 19.3-19.4 GHz and 19.6-19.7 GHz bands applicants must certify that they will comply with the ITU PFD limits governing NGSO FSS systems in the 17.7-19.3 GHz band; and
( 2 ) Any applicable equivalent power flux-density levels in Article 22, Section II, and Resolution 76 of the ITU Radio Regulations (both incorporated by reference, § 25.108).
( b ) [Reserved]
( c ) Prior to the initiation of service, an NGSO FSS operator licensed or holding a market access authorization to operate in the 10.7-30 GHz frequency range must receive a “favorable” or “qualified favorable” finding by the ITU Radiocommunication Bureau, in accordance with Resolution 85 of the ITU Radio Regulations (incorporated by reference, § 25.108), regarding its compliance with applicable ITU EPFD limits. In addition, a market access holder in these bands must: ( 1 ) Communicate the ITU finding to the Commission; and
( 2 ) Submit the input data files used for the ITU validation software.
( d ) Coordination will be required between NGSO FSS systems and GSO FSS earth stations in the 10.7-12.75 GHz band when: ( 1 ) The GSO satellite network has receive earth stations with earth station antenna maximum isotropic gain greater than or equal to 64 dBi; G/T of 44 dB/K or higher; and emission bandwidth of 250 MHz; and
( 2 ) The EPFDdown radiated by the NGSO satellite system into the GSO specific receive earth station, either within the U.S. for domestic service or any points outside the U.S. for international service, as calculated using the ITU software for examining compliance with EPFD limits exceeds—174.5 dB(W/(m2/40kHz)) for any percentage of time for NGSO systems with all satellites only operating at or below 2500 km altitude, or—202 dB(W/(m2/40kHz)) for any percentage of time for NGSO systems with any satellites operating above 2500 km altitude.
( e ) An NGSO FSS licensee or market access recipient must ensure that ephemeris data for its constellation is available to all operators of authorized, in-orbit, co-frequency satellite systems in a manner that is mutually acceptable.
[82 FR 59985, Dec. 18, 2017, as amended at 86 FR 11644, Feb. 26, 2021]
§ 73.3592 Conditional grant. ( a ) Where a grant of an application would preclude the grant of any application or applications mutually exclusive with it, the FCC may, if the public interest will be served thereby, make a conditional grant of one of the applications and designate all of the mutually exclusive applications for hearing. Such conditional grant will be made upon the express condition that such grant is subject to being withdrawn if, at the hearing, it is shown that public interest will be better served by a grant of one of the other applications. Such conditional grants will be issued only where it appears: ( 1 ) That some or all of the applications were not filed in good faith but were filed for the purpose of delaying or hindering the grant of another application; or
( 2 ) That public interest requires the prompt establishment of broadcast service in a particular community or area; or
( 3 ) That a grant of one or more applications would be in the public interest, and that a delay in making a grant to any applicant until after the conclusion of a hearing on all applications might jeopardize the rights of the United States under the provisions of international agreement to the use of the frequency in question; or
( 4 ) That a grant of one application would be in the public interest, and that it appears from an examination of the remaining applications that they cannot be granted because they are in violation of provisions of the Communications Act, other statutes, or the provisions of the FCC rules.
( b ) When two or more applications for the same AM, FM or TV assignment have been designated for hearing, the FCC may, if the public interest will be served thereby, make a conditional grant to a group composed of any two or more of the competing applicants, such grant to terminate when the successful applicant commences operation under the terms of a regular authorization. No conditional grant will be made unless all of the competing applicants have been afforded a reasonable opportunity to participate in the group seeking the conditional grant. In its application, the group shall include a special showing as to the need for the service pending operation by the successful applicant under the terms of a regular authorization; the effect, if any, of a grant on the position of any applicant which is not a member of the group; and any other factors which are deemed pertinent to the public interest judgment.
[44 FR 38507, July 2, 1979]
No. 11-6020.

#### Mangual *v.*United States.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-1149

In re: ADRIAN PAULINO, a/k/a AD, agent of Gordo,

Petitioner.

On Petitions for Writ of Mandamus. (2:15-cr-00154-AWA-DEM-1)

Submitted: April 19, 2022 Decided: May 2, 2022

Before NIEMEYER, HARRIS, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.

Petitions denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Adrian Paulino, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1149 Doc: 9 Filed: 05/02/2022 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Adrian Paulino petitions for a writ of mandamus requesting that we review several 

rulings in his criminal proceeding and the district court’s denial of his motion for 

compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). He also accuses the district 

court judge of displaying bias and colluding with the prosecution, allegations we construe 

as a request for an order directing the judge to recuse herself. We conclude that Paulino is 

not entitled to mandamus relief. 

Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary 

circumstances. Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 542 U.S. 367, 380 (2004); In re Murphy-Brown, 

LLC, 907 F.3d 788, 795 (4th Cir. 2018). Further, mandamus relief is available only when 

the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought and “has no other adequate means to 

attain the relief [he] desires.” Murphy-Brown, 907 F.3d at 795 (cleaned up).

We conclude that Paulino is not entitled to mandamus relief regarding his request 

for review of the challenged rulings in his criminal proceeding and the denial of his motion 

for compassionate release. Mandamus relief is not a substitute for appeal, In re Lockheed 

Martin Corp., 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007), and the proper vehicle for raising 

ineffective-assistance and prosecutorial-misconduct claims is a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. 

While mandamus may be used to seek recusal of a district court judge, see In re Beard, 

811 F.2d 818, 827 (4th Cir. 1987), we conclude that Paulino’s conclusory assertions of bias 

and collusion, based on his dissatisfaction with the judge’s adverse rulings, are insufficient 

to warrant recusal, see Belue v. Leventhal, 640 F.3d 567, 572-73 (4th Cir. 2011). 

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1149 Doc: 9 Filed: 05/02/2022 Pg: 2 of 3
3

Accordingly, we deny Paulino’s petition and supplemental petition for a writ of 

mandamus. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process. 

PETITIONS DENIED

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1149 Doc: 9 Filed: 05/02/2022 Pg: 3 of 3
#### § 69.128 Billing name and address.

Appropriate subelements shall be established for the use of equipment or facilities that are associated with offerings of billing name and address.

[58 FR 36145, July 6, 1993]
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Securities and Exchange Commission

Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act, Pub. L. 94-409, that the Securities and Exchange Commission will hold the following meetings during the week of January 23, 2006: Closed Meetings will be held on Thursday, January 26, 2006 at 9 a.m. and on January 26, 2006 at 2 p.m.

Commissioners and certain staff members who have an interest in the matter will attend the Closed Meeting on January 26, 2006 at 9 a.m. Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the Closed Meeting on January 26, 2006 at 2 p.m. Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters may also be present.

The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), (3), (5), (7), (8), (9)(B), and (10) and 17 CFR 200.402(a), (3), (5), (7), (8), 9(ii) and (10) permit consideration of the scheduled matters at the Closed Meetings.

Commissioner Glassman, as duty officer, voted to consider the items listed for the closed meetings in closed sessions and that no earlier notice thereof was possible.

                    The subject matter of the Closed Meeting scheduled for 9 a.m. on Thursday, January 26, 2006 will be:                          ( print page 3907)    

Institution and settlement of an injunctive action.

The subject matter of the Closed Meeting scheduled for 2 p.m. on Thursday, January 26, 2006 will be:

Formal orders of investigations; 

Institution and settlement of injunctive actions; 

Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings of an enforcement nature; 

Opinion; and

Amici consideration.

At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in the scheduling of meeting items.

For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed, please contact:

The Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.

Dated: January 20, 2006.

J. Lynn Taylor,

Assistant Secretary.

[FR Doc. 06-707 Filed 1-20-06; 12:52 pm]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P
No. 11-5037.

#### Romero-Camacho *v.*United States.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.