alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### SERVED: AUGUST 26, 2014 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, DC
IN THE MATTER OF Certified Aviation Services, LLC DOCKETNO. FAA 2014-0408 (Civil Penalty Action).

ORDER OF DISMISSAL On July 15,2014,the Federal Aviation**Adminis~ration** (hereinafter referred to as "Complainant") filed a Complaint. On July I0, 2014, Certified Aviation Services, LLC (hereinafter referred to as "Respondent") filed a Request for Hearing. On August 7, 2014, Respondent requested that its hearing request be withdrawn. 14 C.F.R. 

### § 13.215 states: "At any time before or during a hearing, an agency attorney may withdraw a complaint orpartymay withdraw a request for a hearing without the consent ofthe administrative lawjudge. Ifan agency attorney withdraws the complaint or a party withdraws the request for a hearing and the answer, the administrative lawjudge shall dismiss the proceedings under this subpart with prejudice." WHEREFORE, the within filed Request to Withdraw Complainthaving been read and considered, it is ORDERED as follows: 1. Resj:>Ondent's Request to Withdraw Complaint be and is hereby granted; and 2. This proceedingbe and is hereby dismissed with prejudice. 

### -·-··r:"-r-: <---r/·····1 

### j 

## J '\ ----! \"::-· "ff ·:·- "<::"";'"- •. ;. \.'. f 1 '-.X.,rCi,...A ·- \ • . l < , .•AJ,**'-··~.1**

................ 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-Suite2W10001
ONE COPY
William Corteal Certified Aviation Services, LLC, Respondent 1150 South Vineyard Avenue Ontario, CA 91761 TEL: 909-458-6462 FAX: 909-605-0390 Jeffrey M. Harper, Complainant's Counsel Federal Aviation Administration Northwest Mountain Region (ANM-7) 1601 Lind Avenue Southwest Renton, W A 98057 TEL: 425-227-2161 FAX: 425-227-1007 The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin,Administrative LawJudge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 NewJersey Avenue, S.E. (E11-310) Washington, DC 20590 TEL: 202-366-5121 StaffAssistant FAX: 202-366-7536 DocketNo. FAA-2014-0408 (Civil Penalty Action)

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person orby expedited courier, use the following address: Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite2WIOOO, Washington, DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                          5

<S>                                                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                      12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                  May-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                       May-31-1999
<CASH>                                                         2793592
<SECURITIES>                                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                 22378316
<ALLOWANCES>                                                    804470
<INVENTORY>                                                   16065190
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                              43622372
<PP&E>                                                        15126162
<DEPRECIATION>                                                 5068996
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                99733517
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                         22481565
<BONDS>                                                       39999317
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                0
<PREFERRED>                                                          0
<COMMON>                                                        748841
<OTHER-SE>                                                    39303826
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                  99733517
<SALES>                                                       59524539
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                              59524539
<CGS>                                                         27550548
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                 27550548
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                              25665324
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                             1416179
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                5407800
<INCOME-TAX>                                                   1846776
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                            3561024
<DISCONTINUED>                                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                      0
<CHANGES>                                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                                   3561024
<EPS-BASIC>                                                     0.47
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                     0.45




</TABLE>
Exhibit 23.1



                        CONSENT OF DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP


We consent to the  incorporation  by reference in  Registration  Statement  Nos.
2-92053, 33-2171, 33-17848 (Post-Effective Amendment No. 1), 33-33803, 33-33807,
33-39323,  33-36911, 33-45176, 33-45231, 33-45233, 33-56952, 33-58708, 33-72158,
033-55265  (Post-Effective  Amendment No. 1), 033-60379,  033-63547,  333-11639,
333-15923 and 333-29099 of 3Com Corporation on Form S-8 of our report dated June
23, 1998,  appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of 3Com  Corporation for
the year ended May 31, 1998.


/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP

San Jose, California
August 7, 1998
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET OF CALIFORNIA BEACH RESTAURANTS, INC., AS OF APRIL
30, 1999, AND THE RELATED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS, STOCKHOLDERS'
EQUITY, AND CASH FLOWS FOR THE YEAR THEN ENDED AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-1999
<CASH>                                       1,018,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   50,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    211,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,589,000
<PP&E>                                       5,275,000
<DEPRECIATION>                             (3,192,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,576,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,431,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        34,000
<OTHER-SE>                                      70,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,576,000
<SALES>                                     13,687,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            13,687,000
<CGS>                                       11,928,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               13,350,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,017,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             303,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (678,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (680,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (680,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.20)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.20)


</TABLE>
MPD

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 20-0119

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

JOHN LEO STEGER,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellee’s motion for a 30-day extension of time, and

good cause appearing therefor, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellee is granted an extension of time 

to and including September 10, 2021, within which to prepare, serve, and file its 

response brief.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

August 6 2021

08/06/2021

Case Number: DA 20-0119
# Hardesty



# p o_ki)t 

# Parraguirre 321, 324 (1996). We therefore conclude that the district court did not err in denying appellant's motion. Accordingly, we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 2

cc: Hon. Kathleen E. Delaney, District Judge Michael Leon Williams Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

2 

# We have reviewed all documents that appellant has submitted in proper person to the clerk of this court in this matter, and we conclude that no relief based upon those submissions is warranted. To the extent that appellant has attempted to present claims or facts in those submissions which were not previously presented in the proceedings below, we have declined to consider them in the first instance. J.

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (0) 1947A
' 4 

# 2
!,
- ‘7F1A7()T;(1 ,

17 11-.1: 7 441,7 :: :' . 1 11‹ 114 1(1-'111A1,3E niz-101411 -T:W„;
From: mfenlaw@ruddwisdom.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:32:26 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Mark Fenlaw

Austin, TX 78731
No. 558, Misc.

#### Maldonado *v.*Eyman, Warden, et al.

Supreme Court of Arizona. Certiorari denied.
From: rvkinsel@comcast.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:08:44 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Richard Kinsel

Greenwood, IN 46143
From: David Isaacs <DIsaacs@sia-online.org>

To: Alexis McKittrick/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

Cc: "Laurie.Beu@ismi.sematech.org" <Laurie.Beu@ismi.sematech.org>

Date: 08/30/2012 01:56 PM

Subject: FW: Subpart I Docket Items from SIA & ISMI

Alexis - please see the message below regarding the ISMI documents. 

David

From: Kwong, Hsi-An (ISMI) [mailto:hsi-an.kwong@ismi.sematech.org]

Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2012 1:38 PM

To: David Isaacs; Beu, Laurie (ISMI)

Cc: Rajguru, Sanjay (ISMI)

Subject: RE: Subpart I Docket Items from SIA & ISMI

Dear David:

Per EPA's request, ISMI grants permission to the EPA to waive the ISMI copyright 

disclaimer on the front page of the three documents referenced below and as 

attachments in this email:

SIA ISMI Presentation of Etch Alternative to EPA 11-17-11.pdf

SIA Etch Alternative to Recipe-Specific Testing 8-11-2011.pdf

4- SIA-ISMI Stack test technical presentation 30Nov11 redact.pdf

Please contact me if you have questions.

Best regards,

Hsi-An

Hsi-An Kwong, P.E.

ESH Program Manager

International SEMATECH Manufacturing Initiative

257 Fuller Road, Suite 2200 Albany, New York 12203

Phone: (518) 649-1265

hsi-an.kwong@ismi.sematech.org<mailto:hsi-an.kwong@ismi.sematech.org>

From: Beu, Laurie (ISMI)

Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2012 11:13 AM

To: Rajguru, Sanjay (ISMI); Kwong, Hsi-An (ISMI)

Cc: David Isaacs

Subject: FW: Subpart I Docket Items from SIA & ISMI

Importance: High

Sanjay and Hsi-An,

Please see below request from Alexis of EPA. EPA needs permission to post the 

following documents in the public docket:

SIA ISMI Presentation of Etch Alternative to EPA 11-17-11.pdf

SIA Etch Alternative to Recipe-Specific Testing 8-11-2011.pdf

4- SIA-ISMI Stack test technical presentation 30Nov11 redact.pdf

Can you please send them the ok?

Page 1 of 2

file:///C:/Users/JO'Neil/AppData/Local/Temp/XPgrpwise/503F7F3FDom-MorPO1-Mor10... 8/30/2012
Thanks.

Laurie

Page 2 of 2

file:///C:/Users/JO'Neil/AppData/Local/Temp/XPgrpwise/503F7F3FDom-MorPO1-Mor10... 8/30/2012
From: ocsandman@verizon.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:59:10 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

CHUCK GUIDOTTI

Haddon Heights, NJ 08035
March 24, 1964

No. 68381.

Appeal 5136.

#### Kaplan Products & Textiles, Inc. *v.*United States.

C.D. 2376 affirmed December 12, 1963.

C.A.D. 828.
From: bogbwiring@powerweb.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:35:16 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Lloyd Musack

Mayville, WI 53050
#### James Ervin MCGEE, Jr., Petitioner—Appellant, v. Jonathan OZMINT; Colie Rushton; Henry Dargan McMaster, Respondents—Appellees.

No. 05-6548.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Aug. 18, 2005.

Decided: Aug. 25, 2005.

James Ervin McGee, Jr., Appellant pro se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General, William Edgar Salter, III, Office of the Attorney General of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

*231Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

James Ervin McGee, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) as untimely. An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2254 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. *See Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that McGee has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal as untimely. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*
No. 456, Misc.

#### Piccott *v.*Sinclair, Warden.

Petitioner *pro se.*

*Richard W. Ervin,*Attorney General of Florida, and *George R. Georgiejf,*Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.

Supreme Court of Florida. Certiorari denied.