alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Editorial Note on Part 287
Editorial Note: The regulations contained in this part were codified by the Internal Revenue Service in Treasury Decision 6820, 30 FR 6030, Apr. 29, 1965. For text see also 26 CFR part 2.

§ 287.24 Extent of tax liability. ( a ) *Declared value excess-profits tax.* Gain which is includible in gross income under § 287.23 shall be included in gross income for all income and excess-profits tax purposes, but not for the purposes of the declared value excess-profits tax and the capital stock tax as provided in section 511(i) of the Act. In lieu of any adjustment with respect to such declared value excess-profits tax, there is imposed for any taxable year ending on or before June 30, 1945, in which the gain is realized an additional tax of 1.1 percent of the amount of the gain. No additional capital stock tax liability is incurred.
( b ) *Improper deposits.* In the case of deposits in the construction reserve fund of amounts derived from sources other than those specified in section 511 of the Act, or in the case of failure to deposit an amount equal to the “net proceeds” or “net indemnity” within the period prescribed in section 511(c) of the Act and § 287.15, the taxpayer obtains no suspension or postponement of any tax liability and the tax is collectible without regard to the provisions of section 511(c) of the Act.
( c ) *Time for filing claim subsequent to election under section 511(c)(2).* If an election is made under section 511(c)(2) of the Act, and paragraph (a)(2) of § 287.12, and if computation or recomputation in accordance therewith is otherwise allowable but is prevented, on the date of filing of notice of such election, or within six months thereafter, by any statute of limitation, such computation or recomputation nevertheless shall be made notwithstanding such statute if a claim therefor is filed within six months after the date of making such election. If as the result of such computation or recomputation an overpayment is disclosed, a claim for refund on Form 843 should also be filed within such six months' period.
U.S. Department of 

Transportation 

Office of the Secretary 

Of Transportation 

October 1, 2012 

Mr. Ted Vallas 

President 

Carlsbad-Palomar Airlines, Inc. 

d/b/a California Pacific Airlines 

5670 El Camino Real, Suite D 

Carlsbad, CA 92008 

Dear Mr. Vallas: 

i .• I 

/: r.: (ll \.-. \) ' 

1200 New Jersey Ave., S.E. 

Washington, DC 20590 

Re: Docket DOT-OST-2010-0126, Application of 

Carlsbad-Palomar Airlines, Inc. d/b/a California 

Pacific Airlines for a certificate of public 

convenience and necessity 

This responds to your letter of August 7, 2012, requesting on behalf of Carlsbad-Palomar 

Airlines, Inc. d/b/a California Pacific Airlines ("CP Air"), an extension under section 

204.7 of our rules, in which to fulfill the conditions in Order 2011-8-3 issued August 25~ 

2011, and commence operations as a U.S. certificated air carrier. In support of its request, 

CP Air states that it is continuing to work with the Federal Aviation Administration 

("FAA") to obtain the required safety authority for its proposed operation, it has entered 

into an aircraft lease and it 1s negotiating additional aircraft leases, and it has retained an 

investment banker to aid it in the acquisition of additional capital to support its proposed 

operations. 

After reviewing the infom1ation you submitted in support of an extension and conferring 

with the FAA, it appears that CP Air is taking steps to commence certificated operations. 

Therefore, we conclude that there is good cause to grant the company tmtil February 25, 

2013, to commence actual f1ight operations. 

Finally, we remind CP Air that it is not our common practice to grant requests for 

extensions absent a clear expectation, on our part, that our actions in these matters will 

allow CP Air to fulfill the conditions of Order 2011-8-3, and that the air carrier will 

commence operations as a certificated air carrier by February 25, 2013. Any additional 

requests for a waiver from section 204.7 of our rules must be received 45-days before the 

expiration of CP Air's authority and be accompanied by adequate information evidencing 

that CP Air still meets. the Department's fitness criteria and that it has completed nearly all 

of the steps to commence operations (i.e., has the necessary personnel, financial resources, 
2 

aircraft, and FAA operating authority). Furthermore, any such waiver request would have 

to be filed with the Department of Transportation Dockets (via www.regulations.gov and 

accompanied by a $280 application fee). 

If you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact Damon Walker of my 

staff on (202) 366-7785. 

Sincerely, 

Chief, Air Carrier Fitness Division 

Office of Aviation Analysis 

cc: Docket DOT-OST-2010-0126 

Radames Naveira, Jr. 

FAA Principle Operations Inspector 

Eugene Jester 

FAA Principle Maintenance Inspector
I • 

I 

I 

1 

. SERVED: August 14, 2015 

..... i 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

----------

IN THE MATTER OF 

LEARJET INC. 

Docket No. FAA-2014- 0113 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

r·, 

The Federal Aviation Administration (hereinafter "FAA") tiled a Complaint dated March 

24, 2014. Learjet Inc. (hereinafter "Learjet") filed a Request for Hearing dated March 17, 2014 

and its Answer dated April 22, 2014. 

Learjet filed a withdrawal of Request for Hearing dated January 15, 2015. 

14 C.F.R. § 13.215 states: "At any time before or during a hearing, an agency attorney 

may withdraw a complaint or party may withdraw a request for a hearing without the 

consent ofthe administrative law judge. If an agency attorney withdraws the complaint or 

a party withdraws the request for a hearing and the answer, the administrative law judge 

shall dismiss the proceedings under this subpart with prejudice.'' 

WHEREFORE, Learjet having withdrawn its Request for Hearing, it be and is hereby 

ORDERED as follows: 

1. Learjet's request to withdraw its Request for Hearing be and is hereby granted; 

and 

2. This proceeding be and is hereby dismissed with prejudice. 

Richard C. Goodwin 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

Attachment- Service List 
SERVICE LIST- BY U.S. MAIL 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W I 0001 

0Nf1~ COPY 

Mr. Ralph Acs, Vice President & General Manager 

Learjet, Inc., Respondent 

P.O. Box 7707 

Wichita, KS 67277-7707 

TEL: NOT PROVIDED 

FAX: NOT PROVIDED 

Brenda R. Mesker, 

Director of Legal Services 

Learjet, Inc. 

One Lear:jet Way 

Wichita, KS 67209 

TEL: NOT PROVIDED 

FAX: NOT PROVIDED 

Kenneth P. Quinn, Esquire, Re,\pondent 's Counsel 

Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman 

2300 N Street, NW 

Washington, DC 2003 7-1122 

TEL: 202-663-8000 

FAX: 202-663-8007 

David Kessler, Complainant's Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

901 Locust, Room 506 

Kansas City, MO 64106-2641 · 

TEL: 816-329-3763 

FAX: 816-329-3771 

Docket No. FAA-2014-0113 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building--Suite 2WIOOO. Washington, 

DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk. AGC-430. 

2 
The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (E 11-31 0) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-5121 Stcdi Assistant 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

3
-79 -78 -77 -76 -75 -74 -73

39 40 41 42



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 500 1000 1500 1000 18 12 06 00 08/24 

### NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

## Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 24 Aug 06

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 39.41 N 76.30 WMeters AGL
-81 -80 -79 -78 -77 -76 -75

37 38 39 40 41



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 500 1000 1500 500 18 12 06 00 08/04 

### NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

## Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 04 Aug 07

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 38.77 N 77.11 WMeters AGL
#### In the Matter of the Application of the New York, Lackawanna and Western Railroad Company to Acquire Lands of Charles S. Longwell, *Appellant*.

Orders appealed from reversed, and the motion made by the land owner at Special Term granted, on condition that he pay to the 'railroad company the taxed costs and disbursements of the hearing already had before the commissioners, and also ten dollars costs and disbursements of this appeal and ten dollars costs of the motion at Special Term; otherwise the orders appealed from are affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements of this appeal to the respondent. Opinion by

Smith, P. J.
TRTM_TYPE HOLE_DIRECTION_TYPE 1947 1948 1949 1950 1951 1952

FRAC D 2 5 6 5

FRAC H

FRAC P

FRAC V 2,266 2,841 2,559 3,591 5,894 7,218

REFRAC D

REFRAC H

REFRAC V 1
1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961

5 22 10 7 18 21 28 16 23

1

10,244 14,247 17,595 18,438 17,012 15,321 15,915 14,175 15,297
1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970

41 17 58 52 16 20 16 21 23

14,072 12,276 12,687 12,652 10,967 10,143 10,111 10,784 10,382
1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979

17 10 9 8 12 73 54 47 43

1 2 3

10,573 12,744 14,592 16,812 19,353 21,895 26,668 29,790 30,941

1 1
1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988

101 64 91 153 136 184 245 484 343

5 6 1 1 3 5 4 3 31

43,790 51,045 41,671 38,030 45,982 37,272 20,009 20,875 18,523

10

2 1 1 1
1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

408 606 414 376 718 828 1,090 1,075 1,003

17 53 38 46 43 43 83 201 288

3

19,344 25,145 16,892 20,689 16,610 18,727 17,810 23,095 27,637

2 1 1
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

880 930 1,677 4,155 3,258 5,338 7,117 8,430 10,153

104 141 319 293 439 545 1,346 3,824 7,836

1 1

24,675 22,667 33,778 44,577 37,513 42,933 50,109 59,308 73,906

3 1 3 9 9 8 25 23

1 2 2 2 8 8 12

50 58 56 70 154 161 150
2007 2008 2009 2010

11,881 15,333 10,651 12,050

12,849 22,968 20,845 26,275

1 7 39

76,789 73,890 32,350 32,258

19 11 26 35

27 28 18 11

196 142 87 199
# C_2012174EN.01001602.xml

| 16.6.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 174/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.6.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 174/16

---

Action brought on 29 March 2012 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain

(Case C-151/12)

2012/C 174/25

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: G. Valero Jordana and B. Simon, Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Kingdom of Spain

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Declare that, with regard to its intracommunal river basins, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 4(8), 7(2) and 10(1) and (2), and Sections 1.3 and 1.4 of Annex V, of Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy; (1) |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare that, with regard to its intracommunal river basins, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 4(8), 7(2) and 10(1) and (2), and Sections 1.3 and 1.4 of Annex V, of Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy; (1)

1

| — | Order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission submits that the Kingdom of Spain has incorrectly transposed the provisions of Directive 2000/60/EC referred to in the form of order set out in the application, inasmuch as the Spanish legislation applies only to intercommunal river basins in Spain [whose waters flow through more than one Autonomous Community]. Consequently, those provisions have not been transposed into Spanish law as regards intracommunal river basins (whose waters flow through only one Autonomous Community).

---

(1)  OJ 2000 L 327, p. 1.

1

---
#### Lee Roguemore v. The State.

No. *6621.*

*Decided June 15.*

Theft—Practice—Accomplice Testimony.—A conviction for crime can not be bad upon the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice. See the opinion for the substance of evidence *held*insufficient to support a conviction for theft, because based upon the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice.

Appeal from the District Court of Wilbarger. Tried below before Hon. G. A. Brown.

The opinion states the case. The penalty assessed was a term of five years in the penitentiary.

No brief for appellant.

*W. L. Davidson,*Assistant Attorney-General, and *G. W. Walters,*for the State.

Hurt, Judge.

This conviction is for the theft of a horse.

On the 9th day of November, 1888, near Vernon, Wilbarger County, Frank Crenshaw’s gray horse was in the barn of its owner, the barn being closed and fastened. On that night the east door shutter was pried open, and the horse taken by some one. Crenshaw states that the defendant knew how to open the shutter, and that without such knowledge the shutter could not have been opened in the manner in which it was. opened. It is made to appear on cross-examination that others had the same information as defendant had regarding the door. This is the only-circumstance tending to connect the appellant with the theft of the horse,, outside of the testimony of Shannon, save the fact that he was seen talking with Hill, Cooper, and Shannon—Hill and Cooper being the other persons implicated by Shannon—these conversations occurring in the town of Vernon just before and after the theft.

Shannon, who was evidently one of the thieves, made a complete case-against the appellant. Besides being contradicted by other witnesses,, he-contradicts his own former statements, and makes out a very clear case of perjury committed upon a former trial or on this trial. Being an accomplice, he, to sustain a conviction upon his testimony should be corroborated by other witnesses or witness. This should be testimony from a pure source, tending to connect the defendant with the theft of the horse. That defendant did know how the shutter to the barn was fastened, and that this was necessary knowledge, etc., weighs nothing when considered in connection with the fact that others had the same knowledge. That he associated with Hill and Cooper, and conversed with them, or even with Shannon, is not such testimony as would sanction the verdict—not such corroboration as would justify a conviction upon the testimony of an avowed thief.

*56Because the accomplice is not sufficiently corroborated the conviction is set aside, the judgment is reversed, and the case remanded for another trial.

*Reversed and remanded.*

Judges all present and concurring.
## YUNEEQ Q500 TYPHOON NORMAL CHECKLIST

YUNEEC Q500 CHECKLIST R EV. 01

03/2015 PREFLIGHT

SITE INSPECTION COMPLETE

AIRCRAFT AIRWORTHINESS INSPECTION COMPLETE

CREW BRIEFING COMPLETE

VISUAL OBSERVER (IF REQ) IN POSITION

TRANSMITTER POWER SWITCH SELECTED ON

TRANSMITTER POWER

- UP I NITIALIZATION COMPLETE

TRANSMITTER BATTERY STATUS CHECKED

AIRCRAFT POWER SWITCH SELECTED ON

AIRCRAFT POWER

- UP INITIALIZATION COMPLETE

AIR CRAFT BATTERY STATUS CHECKED

GPS SATALLITE AVAILABLITY CHECKED

VIDEO LINK CHECKED

VIDEO CONTROLS CHECKED

ANGLE MODE CONTROL CHECKED

GPS FLIGHT MODE CHECKED

AIRCRAFT LED STATUS LIGHT S CHECKED

POWER UP

FLIGHT MODE SET / AS REQ

PROPELLER AREA ” CLEAR PROPS ”

BACK UP TIMER STARTED

START / STOP SELECTOR PRESSED

ALL MOTORS ENERGIZED CHECKED

BEFORE TAKEOFF

TRANSMITTER BATTERY POWER CHECKED

AIRCRAFT BATTERY POWER CHECKED

AFTER TAKEOFF

FLIGHT CONTRO L RESPONSE CHECKED

BEFORE LANDING

LANDING ZONE “ CLEAR LANDING ZONE ”

AFTER LANDIN G

START / STOP SELECTOR STOP

MOTOR POWER DOWN VERIFIED

AIRCRAFT POWER SWITCH OFF

TRANSMITTER POWER SWITCH OFF

POST FLIGHT INSPECTION COMPLETE

## * ****** YUNEEQ Q500 TYPHOON ***** * *

EMERGENCY / ABNORMAL CHECKLIST

YUNEEC Q500 CHECKLIST REV. 01

03/2015 ON GROUND

ONE OR MORE MOTOR (S) FAIL TO START SELECT STOP BUTTON

REFERENCE TROUBLESHOOT GUID E

ABNORMAL LED INDICATION REFER ENCE LED STATUS GUIDE

AND TROUBLESHOOT GUIDE

IN FLIGHT

VIDEO LINK LOSS LAND AS SOON AS PRACTICABL E

ORIENTATION LOSS SELECT HOME MODE

GPS INTEGRITY LOSS SELECT ANGLE MODE

BATTERY STATUS WARNING LAND IMMEDIATELY AT

NEAREST SUITABLE LOCATION

DITCHING AIRCRAFT SELECT STOP BUTTON [ 3 SECONDS]
#### PETER CUMMINGS, PROSECUTOR, v. TOWN OF MONTCLAIR, DEFENDANT.

Argued January 17, 1929

Decided January 30, 1929.

Before Justices Mirtuer, Black and Campbell.

Por the prosecutor, *Thomas Brunetto.*

Por the defendant, *George R. Beach*and *George S. Harris.*

Pee Cueiam.

A rule to show cause was allowed in this case, for the issuance of a writ of *certiorari,*to review a judgment of dismissal from the fire department of the town of Montclair rendered against the prosecutor, Peter Cummings, on April 24th, 1928.

Our reading of the record in this case leads us to the conclusion, that a writ of *certiorari*should he allowed to review the judgment of dismissal.
# C_2013344EN.01002602.xml

| 23.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 344/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 344/26

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 September 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Salzgitter Mannesmann Handel GmbH v SC Laminorul SA

(Case C-157/12) (1)

1

(Area of freedom, security and justice - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Article 34(3) and (4) - Recognition of a judgment given in another Member State - Situation whereby that judgment is irreconcilable with an earlier judgment given in that Member State involving the same cause of action and between the same parties)

2013/C 344/44

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Salzgitter Mannesmann Handel GmbH

Applicant:

Defendant: SC Laminorul SA

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Bundesgerichtshof — Interpretation of Article 34(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1) — Recognition of a judgment given in another Member State — Situation in which that decision is irreconcilable with another judgment given previously in the same Member State between the same parties, with the same subject matter and same cause of action

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 34(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as not covering irreconcilable judgments given by courts of the same Member State.

---

(1)  OJ C 184, 23.6.2012.

1

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                            DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                 DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                            50,445
<SECURITIES>                                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    967,516
<ALLOWANCES>                                      20,189
<INVENTORY>                                            0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               1,029,757
<PP&E>                                           765,768
<DEPRECIATION>                                   446,038
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 1,387,154
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          2,976,420
<BONDS>                                                0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                        1,000
<COMMON>                                          31,691
<OTHER-SE>                                    (2,020,427)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   1,387,154
<SALES>                                        7,042,089
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               7,042,089
<CGS>                                          4,964,144
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  4,964,144
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               174,067
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (1,213,135)
<INCOME-TAX>                                           0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (1,213,135)
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (1,213,135)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                       (.39)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       (.39)
        


</TABLE>
| 1. | I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A (Amendment No. 1) of Victory Energy Corporation; |
|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 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; |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date: August 28, 2014 | By:    | /s/ Kenneth Hill                      |   |
|----------------------------|--------|---------------------------------------|--------|
|                       |   | Kenneth Hill                          |   |
|                       |   | President and Chief Executive Officer |   |
The State of TexasAppellee/s



# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

May 28, 2014

N o. 04

- 11

- 00156

- CR

J uan E. GUERRA

, Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 290th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2009CR13014

Honorable Melisa Skinner, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

The panel has considered the Appellant ’ s Motion for Rehearing, and the motion is

DENIED.

It is so ORDERED on the 28 th day of May , 201 4

.



### PER CURIA M

ATTESTED TO:

____________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court