alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# SILVERBERG GOLDMAN, L.L.P. ATTORNEYS AT LAW Georgetown Place • Suite 300 • 1101 30th Street, NW • Washington, D.C. 20007 Voice Direct (202) 944·3300 • Facsimile (202) 944-3306

VIA ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION Mr. Robert Finamore Chief, Foreign Air Carrier Licensing Division Mr. Brett Kruger Chief, U.S. Air Carrier Licensing Division Office ofInternational Aviation Department ofTransportation 1200 New Jersey Ave., S.E. Washington, D.C. 20590 May 28,2015

Re: Application of Cimber A/S for an Exemption and Blanket Statement of Authorization, Docket DOT-OST-2015-0113; Application ofUnited Airlines, Inc. for an Amended Exemption, Docket DOT-OST-2004-19148 Dear Messrs. Finamore and Kruger: Counsel for Cimber A/S ("Cimber") has polled each ofthe carriers served with the Application of Cimber for an Exemption and Blanket Statement ofAuthorization and the Application ofUnited Airlines, Inc. for an Amended Exemption filed in the above-referenced Dockets on May 26, 2015 (the "Applications"). Counsel for Cimber hereby reports that there are no objections to the Applications. In the absence of any objection, Cimber respectfully requests that the Department act promptly on the Applications so that the carriers can implement codeshare operations on or about June 8, 2015. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Please do not hesitate to contact me ifyou have any questions.

cc: Gerald Murphy, Esq. All parties on attached Service List Sincerely,



# Jt(~F~~ Michael F. Goldman Counsel for Cimber A/S

### dheflernan@cozen.com jere my

**.ross(~alaskaair**

### .com howard.kass@aa.com robert.wirick@aa.com

**rpommer(~atlasair.com** 

### sascha.vanderbellen(mdelta.com sametta.c.bamett@delta.com 

### Service List

chris.walker@delta.com jhill@cooley.com perkmann(Zv.cooley.com agoerlich@ggh-airlaw.com matwood@cozen.com kevin.montgomerv(iV,polaraircargo.com jrichardson(cujolmlrichardson.com

**jcanny(~ameriietcom** 

### jo1m.fredericksenC{i1suncountty.com thomas.ting(a1suncounily .com nssparks({:V,fedex .com anbird@fedex.com

**cefelts(~fedex.com** 

### sllunsford@fedex.com anita.mosner@hk1aw.com jennifer.nowakaV,hklaw.com barbara.russell@virginamerica.com john.varley@virginarnerica.com william.stallings@usdoj .gov mlbenge@zsrlaw.com dwight.rnoore@ustranscorn.mil john.s.duncan@faa.gov englets(m.state.gov
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-30301

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

DEMARCUS JUNE, also known as June Bug,

also known as Antonio,

Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 97-CR-50079-6

-------------------- December 23, 2002

Before DAVIS, JONES and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Demarcus June appeals the district court’s judgment that

revoked his supervised release and imposed a 48-month sentence.

June entered a guilty plea to a charge of conspiracy to distribute

and possess with intent to distribute five kilograms and more of a

mixture containing a detectable amount of cocaine and fifty grams

and more of a mixture containing a detectable amount of cocaine

base.No. 02-30301

-2-

June contends that the evidence was insufficient to show

that he possessed a firearm, and he argues that the imposition of

the maximum sentence was error. He contends that the district

court did not provide a written statement of the evidence relied

upon and the reasons for the rev ocation. He asserts that the

district court ignored an admission that would have absolved June

and relied on hearsay evidence admitted over his objection.

We review a decision to revoke supervised release for an

abuse of discretion. U nited States v. McCormick

, 54 F.3d 214, 219

(5th Cir. 1995). June’s challenge to the revocation is without

merit. The district court was required to revoke June’s supervised

release because he admitted that he tested positively for use of a

controlled substance. 18 U.S.C. § 3583(g)(1); U nited States v.

Kindred

, 918 F.2d 485, 487 & n.3 (5th Cir. 1990). June’s 48-month

sentence was within the proper range. 18 U.S.C. §§ 3559(a)(1),

3583(b)(1), 3583(e)(3); 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A).

The evidence sufficiently established that June possessed

a firearm, and June’s admission overwhelmingly established that he

violated the conditions of supervised release. U nited St ates v.

Alaniz-Alaniz

, 38 F.3d 788, 792 (5th Cir. 1994). The admission of

hearsay was h armless, and the district court’s judgment includes

the implicit finding that the hearsay was reliable. M cCormick

, 54

F .3d at 220-21 & n.15. The lack of a written statement of the

evidence relied upon is harmless. I d. at 220. The district court

based its decisio n on a credibility determination to which weNo. 02-30301

-3-

accord deference. Id. at 219. The district court’s decision to

revoke June’s supervised release was not an abu se of discretion.

McCormick

, 54 F.3d at 219. Accordingly, the judgment is A FFIRMED

.
Case No. *8,252.*

#### The LEO.

[5 Ben. 486.] 1

District Court, E. D. New York.

Jan. Term, 1872.

Witness Fees — Travel por more than a Hundred Miles.

Travel fees for a witness subpoenaed out of the state can only be taxed for a hundred miles.

[Cited in U. S. v. Sanborn, 28 Fed. 304; Buffalo Ins. Co. v. Providence & Stonington S. S. Co., 29 Fed. 237; The Yemon, 36 Fed. 116; Bhvrow v. Kansas City, Ft. S. & M. R. Co., 54 Fed. 282: Pinson v. Atchison, T. *&*S. F. R. Co., Id. 465.]

[This was a libel by the owners of the schooner Saxon against the steamship Leo for damages on account of collision. There was a decree in favor of the libelants. Case No. 8,251. The case is now heard upon the question of witness fees.]

BENEDICT, District Judge.

The appeal from the clerk’s taxation of witnesses’ fees in the case raises the question, whether, as against the adverse party, traveling fees of a witness subpoenaed out of this state for a greater distance than one. hundred miles can be taxed. The point has been decided by Mr. Justice Nelson, and the practice in the Southern district, in conformity with that decision, is to tax traveling fees for no, greater distance than the • subpoena would run, which is a distance of one hundred miles from tbe place of trial out of the district. The practice in this district must conform to the same decision, and accordingly the appeal in this case is sustained, and a retaxation must be had in accordance with this opinion.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 APR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1,000
<CASH>                                         1,571
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  2,940
<ALLOWANCES>                                   987
<INVENTORY>                                    222
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               4,178
<PP&E>                                         36,664
<DEPRECIATION>                                 24,903
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 16,251
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          3,983
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       19,779
<OTHER-SE>                                     6,389
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   16,251
<SALES>                                        6,576
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               6,576
<CGS>                                          5,686
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  6,996
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             352
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                109
<INCOME-TAX>                                   54
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            55
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   55
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  .01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .01
        


</TABLE>
----

----

LifeHealthCare, Inc. 10-K for September 30,2009

|   | CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO |
|--------|--------------------------------|

|   | 18      U.S.C. SECTION 1350 |
|--------|-----------------------------|

|   | ADOPTED      PURSUANT TO |
|--------|--------------------------|

|   | SECTION      906 OF THE SARBANES—OXLEY ACT OF2002 |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (1) | The      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as      applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;  and |
|--------|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (2) | The      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company      at the dates and for the periodsindicated. |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   |   | By:    | /s/      Martin C. Licht                          |
|--------|--------|--------|---------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |   | Martin      C. Licht                              |
|   |   |   | Executive      Vice-President (Executive Officer) |
|   |   |   |                                              |
|   |   |   | Date:  January      13, 2010            |
Exhibit 32.1

Written Statement of the Chief Executive Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350

Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. §1350, I, the undersigned Chief Executive Officer of Smart & Final Inc. (the
Company), hereby certify, based on my knowledge, that the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended March 25, 2007 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                              
|------------------------------
|/s/ Etienne Snollaerts        
|Etienne Snollaerts May 3, 2007
Exhibit
35.1





ANNUAL
SERVICER’S COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATE





This
Compliance Certificate is furnished pursuant to Section 4.10 of the Sale and
Servicing Agreement (the “Agreement”), dated as of June 25, 2008, by and among
Hyundai Auto Receivables Trust 2008-A, Hyundai Motor Finance Company, as seller
and servicer (the “Servicer”), Hyundai ABS Funding Corporation, as depositor,
and Citibank, N.A., as indenture trustee and Item 1123 of Regulation
AB.  The undersigned hereby certifies that:





1)           I
am a duly authorized officer of the Servicer.





2)           A
review of the activities of the Servicer from June 25, 2008 through December 31,
2008 (the “Relevant Period”) and of the Servicer’s performance under the
Agreement during the Relevant Period has been made under my
supervision.





3)           Based
on such review, the Servicer has, to the best of my knowledge, fulfilled all of
its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the
Relevant Period.





IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, I have duly executed this Compliance Certificate this 30th day
of March, 2009.











HYUNDAI
MOTOR FINANCE COMPANY, as Servicer








By: /s/ MIN SOK RANDY PARK Name: Min
Sok Randy Park Title:  Vice
President, Corporate Planning and Finance
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

 

**CERTIFICATION OFPRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, Timothy Armes, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Reportof MedCareers Group, Inc. on Form 10-K/A for the year ended January 31, 2014 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Form 10-K fairly presents in all materialrespects the financial condition and results of operations of MedCareers Group, Inc.

 

*By:/s/ Timothy Armes*

Timothy Armes

Chief Executive Officer

(Principal Executive Officer and PrincipalFinancial/Accounting Officer)

 

May 15, 2014
MEDIWARE INFORMATION SYSTEMS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
             SCHEDULE OF COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME (LOSS) PER SHARE
                                   (Unaudited)



<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                                                                         EXHIBIT 11


                                                                Three Months Ended March 31,         Nine Months Ended March 31,
                                                                ------------------------------       ------------------------------
                                                                   2000                1999              2000               1999
                                                                -----------        -----------       -----------        -----------

<S>                                                             <C>                <C>               <C>                <C>
Basic Earnings (Loss) Per Share

      Net earnings (loss)                                       $(1,204,000)       $   968,000       $  (410,000)       $(1,857,000)

      Weighted-average shares:
        Outstanding                                               7,004,000          6,049,000         6,505,000          5,840,000
                                                                -----------        -----------       -----------        -----------

         Basic Earnings (Loss) Per Share                        $     (0.17)       $      0.16       $     (0.06)       $     (0.32)
                                                                ===========        ===========       ===========        ===========


Diluted Earnings (Loss) Per Share

      Net earnings (loss)                                       $(1,204,000)       $   968,000       $  (410,000)       $(1,857,000)

      Weighted-average shares:
        Outstanding                                               7,004,000          6,049,000         6,505,000          5,840,000
        Options and Warrants                                              -          1,071,000                 -                  -
                                                                -----------        -----------       -----------        -----------
                                                                  7,004,000          7,120,000         6,505,000          5,840,000
                                                                -----------        -----------       -----------        -----------

         Diluted Earnings (Loss) Per Share                      $     (0.17)       $      0.14       $     (0.06)       $     (0.32)
                                                                ===========        ===========       ===========        ===========

</TABLE>
                                                                12
### IN THE UNI TED STAT ES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

No. 11-11150 Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee

v. BOBBY MENDEZ, Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 5:00-CR-124-2
Before SMITH, ELROD, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Bobby Mendez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Mendez has filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant po rt i o ns of the record reflected therein, as well as Mendez’s response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appe a l p r e s e n ts no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D August 21, 20 12 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C IR
. R. 47.5 , the cour t has d ete rm inedt hat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t for th in 5 T H C IR
. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 11-11150 Document: 00511963271 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/21/2012No. 11-11150

to withdr a w i s GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See5 T H C I R
. R. 42.2.

2 Case: 11-11150 Document: 00511963271 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/21/2012
BEFORE THE 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

WASHINGTON, DC 

) 

Application of: ) 

) 

21 Air, LLC ) Docket DOT-OST-2015-0043 

) 

for a certificate of public convenience and ) 

necessity pursuant to 49 U.S.C. §41102 ) 

(foreign charter cargo air transportation ) 

MOTION OF 21 AIR, LLC 

FOR RULE 12 CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT 

Communications with respect to this document should be sent to: 

Michael Mendez 

President & CEO 

Centreport II 

202 CentrePort Drive Suite 31 0 

Greensboro, NC 27409 

February 27, 2015 

Pierre Murphy 

Law Offices of Pierre Murphy 

1200 New Hampshire Avenue, NW 

Suite 590 

Washington, DC 20036 

Telephone: (202) 776-3980 

Facsimile: (202) 776-3975 

Email: pmurphy@lopmurphy.com 

Attorney for 21 Air, LLC 
BEFORE THE 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

WASHINGTON, DC 

) 

Application of: ) 

) 

21 Air, LLC ) Docket DOT-OST-2015-0043 

) 

for a certificate of public convenience and ) 

necessity pursuant to 49 U.S.C. §41102 ) 

(foreign charter cargo air transportation ) 

MOTION OF 21 AIR, LLC 

FOR RULE 12 CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT 

Pursuant to Rule 12 of the Department's Rules of Practice, 14 C.F.R. §302.12, 21 Air, 

LLC ("21 Air" or "Applicant") hereby moves to withhold from public disclosure the contents of 

the following exhibit to its Application for interstate scheduled air transportation of persons, 

property and mail. In accordance with Rule 12 of the Department's Rules of Practice, each page 

of the following exhibits has been marked confidential and is being filed under seal. 

Index of Documents to be Withheld 

Exhibit 21Air-9: Projected Revenues & Profits 

This information is protected from public disclosure under the Freedom of Information 

Act exemption for privileged or confidential financial information. See: 5 U.S.C. §552(b)(4). 

To be eligible for an exemption pursuant to Section 552(b)(4), information must fulfill three 

requirements: (1) the information must be commercial or financial in nature; (2) the information 
must be obtained from a person outside of the U.S. government; and (3) the information must be 

confidential or privileged. 

The financial information set forth in Exhibit 21 Air-9 relating to projected revenues and 

expenses is confidential and not otherwise available to the public and the disclosure of the details 

of such information in 21 Air's application is not required in order to further the public interest. 

21 Air therefore requests that the Department follow its usual policy for such financial 

information and grant confidentiality. This is the type of information for which the Department 

routinely grants confidentiality. 

WHEREFORE, 21 Air respectfully requests that the contents of these financial exhibits 

be accorded confidential treatment under Rule 12. 

February 27, 2015 

2 

' 

nferre y 

l~~ Offices of Pierre Murphy 

1200 New Hampshire Avenue, NW 

Suite 590 

Washington, DC 20036 

Telephone: (202) 776-3980 

Facsimile: (202) 776-3975 

E-Mail: pmurphy@lopmurphy .com 

Attorney for 21 Air, LLC
No. 62312.

#### Ideal Mercantile Corp. and J. J. Gavin & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 201896-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of silk scarves or squares similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *The Specialty House, Inc., Bryant & Heffernan, Inc., et al.*(42 C. C. P. A. 136, C. A. D. 585), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
From: ynot49@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 8:54:05 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I agree with the Family Research Council in their following letter, and write to firmly request (if not

demand) that you rescind the unmitigated 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,

Ken Neufeld

El Monte, CA 91732
No. 62822.

#### J. J. Boll *v.*United States,

protest 58/6579 (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with rule 5(b) of the rules of this court, as amended, the protest was dismissed for lack of prosecution.
No. 61124.

protest 292646-K (New York).

#### Cortez Trading Corporation *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

The protest was dismissed.