alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SANDRA DEANNE SHAYNE, No. CIV S-04-1492 MCE DAD P

Petitioner,

v. ORDER

DEBORAH JACQUES, ET AL., 

Respondents.

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an

application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General

Order No. 262.

On June 13, 2005, the magistrate judge filed findings and

recommendations herein which were served on all parties and which

contained notice to all parties that any objections to the

findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. 

///

Case 2:04-cv-01492-MCE -DAD Document 15 Filed 07/21/05 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

Neither party has filed objections to the findings and

recommendations.

The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and

recommendations to be supported by the record and by the

magistrate judge’s analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed June 13, 2005,

are adopted in full;

2. Respondents’ October 13, 2004 motion to dismiss this

action as filed in violation of the statute of limitations is

denied;

3. Respondents’ October 13, 2004 motion to dismiss the

habeas petition as mixed is granted with leave to amend;

4. Petitioner is granted thirty days to file and serve an

amended petition containing only exhausted claims;

5. By motion filed and served with her amended petition,

petitioner may move to stay this action; such a motion must make

the showing required by Rhines v. Weber, 125 S. Ct. 1528, 1534-35

(2005);

6. If petitioner files a motion to stay, respondents shall

file and serve their opposition to the motion within thirty days

after the motion is served, and petitioner shall file and serve

any reply within fifteen days thereafter; and

///

///

///

Case 2:04-cv-01492-MCE -DAD Document 15 Filed 07/21/05 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

3

7. If petitioner does not file a motion to stay,

respondents shall file and serve their answer to the amended

petition within thirty days after the pleading is served, and

petitioner shall file and serve her traverse within thirty days

thereafter.

DATED: July 21, 2005

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-01492-MCE -DAD Document 15 Filed 07/21/05 Page 3 of 3
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Lpath, Inc. (the Corporation) on
Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Scott R. Pancoast, President and Chief Executive Officer and I, Gary J. G. Atkinson,
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, of the Corporation, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to our knowledge:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) 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 Corporation.

Date: November 12, 2009



/s/    Scott R. PancoastScott R. PancoastPresident and Chief Executive Officer/s/    Gary J.G. AtkinsonGary J.G. AtkinsonVice President and Chief Financial Officer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Lpath, Inc. and will be retained by Lpath, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

This certification accompanies the Form 10-Q to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of Lpath, Inc. under the Securities Act
of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of the Form 10-Q), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TIMOTHY JACKSON SEELEY,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1800 DFL CMK P

vs.

THERESA A. SCHWARTZ, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

On June 24, 2005, the Magistrate Judge issued an order denying without prejudice

plaintiff’s June 14, 2005 “motion for leave for extension of time.” The Magistrate Judge also

denied without prejudice plaintiff’s June 28, 2005 “opposition to motion to dismiss CC-II Cry as

a defendant.” On July 28, 2005, plaintiff filed a request for reconsideration of these orders. 

Local Rule 72-303(b), states “rulings by Magistrate Judges shall be final if no

reconsideration thereof is sought from the Court within ten court days . . . from the date of

service of the ruling on the parties.” E.D. Local Rule 72-303(b). Therefore, plaintiff’s request

for reconsideration of the magistrate judge’s order of June 24, 2005 is untimely. 

As for plaintiff’s June 28, 2005 motion, the court finds that the Magistrate Judge’s July

28, 2005 order denying that motion is not “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” E.D. Local Rule

72-303(f). However, it appears that plaintiff has now remedied his error in failing to serve his

opposition properly. Therefore, plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is granted to the extent that

Case 2:04-cv-01800-DFL-CMK Document 63 Filed 08/23/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

the Magistrate Judge shall consider plaintiff’s opposition in resolving defendants’ pending

motion to dismiss unless defendants bring additional facts to the attention of the Magistrate

Judge showing that proper service has not been made. 

DATED: 8/22/2005

DAVID F. LEVI

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-01800-DFL-CMK Document 63 Filed 08/23/05 Page 2 of 2
II 

Calendar No. 533 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4634 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

154 First Avenue East in Jerome, Idaho, as the ‘‘Representative Maxine 

Bell Post Office’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 8, 2024 

Mr. CRAPO (for himself and Mr. RISCH) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs 

SEPTEMBER 25, 2024 

Reported by Mr. PETERS, without amendment 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 154 First Avenue East in Jerome, Idaho, 

as the ‘‘Representative Maxine Bell Post Office’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. REPRESENTATIVE MAXINE BELL POST OFFICE. 

4 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

5 Postal Service located at 154 First Avenue East in JeVerDate Sep 11 2014 16:04 Sep 26, 2024 Jkt 049200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S4634.RS S4634

ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 4634 RS

1 rome, Idaho, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Rep2 resentative Maxine Bell Post Office’’. 

3 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg4 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

5 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

6 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Representative Maxine 

7 Bell Post Office’’. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS

ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
Calendar No. 533 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4634 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States PostBell Post Office’’. Jerome, Idaho, as the ‘‘Representative Maxine al Service located at 154 First Avenue East in 

SEPTEMBER 25, 2024 

Reported without amendment 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
No. 48519.

#### Protests 63661-K, etc., of Hing Wah Tai & Co. et al. (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Cole, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise in question is the ■same in all material respects as that involved in Abstract 41800, which record was incorporated herein. In accordance therewith the claim at 25 percent ■under paragraph 718 (b) was sustained.
No. 50991.

#### Protests 52889-K, etc., of Shantz Associates (Rochester).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel the court found that the facts herein agreed upon were such as to bring the case within the holding in *John Barr*v. *United States*(11 Cust. Ct. 88, C. D. 801), which record was incorporated herein. (See *John Barr*v. *United States,*324 U. S. 83, decided February 5, 1945.) In accordance therewith it was held that the currency of the invoices should be converted at the buying rate in the New York market at noon on the day of exportation (the “free” rate of exchange for pounds sterling), as certified by the Federal Reserve bank and set forth by the collector on each of the entries. The protests were sustained to this extent.
Exhibit 10.15


 


Summary Promissory Note


 


Date: February 07, 2012


By: Email


 


Attn: Shareholders – UNorth LLC


274
E Hamilton Ave, Suite A


Campbell, CA 95008


 


RESOLVED, that LLC would borrow amount of $125,000 from
the LLC member Maryam Rowghani on February 07, 2012. LLC agrees to pay back the amount by March 30, 2012 with annual interest rate
of 14% calculated on daily basis. The payment schedule will be as follows:


 


Borrowed Amount: $125,000


Interest: 14.00%


Estimated Value on 03/30/12: $132,493


Daily Interest
Rate: 0.038%


 


	/s/ Michael Faro	 
	Michael Faro	 
	Managing Member	 
	UNorth LLC	 




 


		UNorth® LLC
		PO Box 1116, Campbell, CA 95009
		1.888.324.2787 tel
		1.408.378.7629 fax
		www.unorth.com
FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

Case No. 5D23-2785 

LT Case No. 2021-CF-2822

_____________________________

LATERRES BRYANT, 

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA, 

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County. 

Jeb Branham, Judge. 

Matthew J. Metz, Public Defender, and Betty Wyatt, Assistant

Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Julian E. Markham, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee. 

April 9, 2024

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. 

WALLIS, EISNAUGLE, and SOUD, JJ., concur. 
2

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
State of New York

Supreme Court, Appellate Division

Third Judicial Department

Decided and Entered: February 5, 2015 519266 

________________________________

In the Matter of the Claim of 

LOREEN KALISHER, 

Appellant.

COMMISSIONER OF LABOR, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Respondent.

________________________________

Calendar Date: December 2, 2014

Before: Lahtinen, J.P., McCarthy, Rose and Devine, JJ.

__________

Loreen Kalisher, Hicksville, appellant pro se.

Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York City

(Bessie Bazile of counsel), for respondent.

__________

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal

Board, filed August 21, 2013, which ruled that claimant was

disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits

because her employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Decision affirmed. No opinion.

Lahtinen, J.P., McCarthy, Rose and Devine, JJ., concur.
-2- 519266 

ORDERED that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger

Clerk of the Court
Before the Third Division,

January 4, 1943

No. 47876.

#### Protests 13755-K, etc., of Pacific Trading Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel” and on the authority of *Pacific Trading Co.*v. *United States*(8 Cust. Ct. 221, C. D. 610) the claim at 10 percent under paragraph 1558 was sustained.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JESSE SIMPKINS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1433 DFL PAN P

vs.

FOOTHILL ORTHOPEDIC, et al., 

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action

seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General Order No. 262.

On April 26, 2006, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any

objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. Neither

party has filed objections to the findings and recommendations.

The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be

supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY

ORDERED that:

/////

Case 2:04-cv-01433-DFL-PAN Document 57 Filed 06/09/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

1. The findings and recommendations filed April 26, 2006 are adopted in full;

and 

2. This action is dismissed without prejudice. See Local Rule 11-110; Fed. R.

Civ. P. 41(b).

DATED: 6/8/2006

DAVID F. LEVI

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-01433-DFL-PAN Document 57 Filed 06/09/06 Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 32.2

    CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



        In connection with the Quarterly Report of Elite  Pharmaceuticals,  Inc.
(the  "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 31, 2004 filed with
the Securities and Exchange  Commission  (the  "Report"),  I, Mark I. Gittelman,
Chief Financial  Officer and Treasurer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18
U.S. C. Section 1350, as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:

        (3)     The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
        of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

        (4)     The information  contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
        material respects,  the consolidated  financial condition of the Company
        as of the dates presented and the  consolidated  result of operations of
        the Company for the periods presented.


                                    /s/ Mark I. Gittelman
Date:    February 11, 2005          ----------------------------
                                    Mark I. Gittelman
                                    Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of
                                    Elite Pharmaceuticals, Inc.


This  certification  has been  furnished  solely  pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided  to  Elite  Pharmaceuticals,   Inc.  and  will  be  retained  by  Elite
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDDIE LEE RADFORD,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1679 MCE KJM P

vs.

T. ELKER, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER FOR PAYMENT

 / OF INMATE FILING FEE

To: The Director of the California Department of Corrections, 1515 S Street, Sacramento,

California 95814:

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, is obligated to

pay the statutory filing fee in effect at the time of filing of his action, $150.00. 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(b)(1). Plaintiff is obligated to make monthly payments in the amount of twenty percent

of the preceding month’s income credited to plaintiff’s trust account. The California Department

of Corrections is required to send to the Clerk of the Court payments from plaintiff’s account

each time the amount in the account exceeds $10.00, until the statutory filing fee is paid in full. 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2).

/////

/////

Case 2:04-cv-01679-MCE -KJM Document 5 Filed 05/12/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

 In accordance with the above and good cause appearing therefore, IT IS HEREBY

ORDERED that:

1. The Director of the California Department of Corrections or a designee shall

collect monthly payments from plaintiff’s prison trust account in an amount equal to twenty

percent (20%) of the preceding month's income credited to the prisoner's trust account and shall

forward those payments to the Clerk of the Court each time the amount in the account exceeds

$10.00 in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2) until a total of $150.00 has been collected and

forwarded to the Clerk of the Court. The payments shall be clearly identified by the name and

number assigned to this action. 

2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of this order and a copy of

plaintiff's in forma pauperis affidavit on Director, California Department of Corrections, 1515 S

Street, Sacramento, California 95814.

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of this order on the Financial

Department of the court.

DATED: May 11, 2005.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

1

radf1679.cdc.a

Case 2:04-cv-01679-MCE -KJM Document 5 Filed 05/12/05 Page 2 of 2
No. 48527.

#### Protest 95327-K of Chas. T. Smith, Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

When the case was called for trial there was no appearance on the part of the plaintiff and the case was ordered submitted. There being nothing in the record to overcome the presumption of correctness attaching to the collector’s decision, the protest was overruled.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 Murray v. HDSP [Civ S 04-1367 MCE GGH P]Stipulation for Dismissal Page 1

WILLIAMS & ASSOCIATES

1250 Sutterville Road, Ste. 290

Sacramento, CA 95822

(916) 456-1122

(916) 737-1126 (fax)

Kathleen J. Williams, CSB #127021

Erick C. Turner, CSB #236186

Attorneys for defendants

GLENN JAMES, M.D., 

JEFFREY ROHLFING, M.D. (sued erroneously

herein as “Dr. Ralfing”), L. DIAL, M.D., ROGER COX, M.D.,

S. MICHAEL ROCHE, M.D., RICHARD SANDHAM, M.D.,

HAROLD WAGNER, CCII, DANETTE JACKSON, CCII

and TOM FELKER

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES TAYLOR MURRAY,

Plaintiff,

vs.

H.D.S.P. MEDICAL CARE, DR. BROWN,

DR. JAMES, DR. RALFING, DR. DIAL,

DR. COX, DR. ROCHE,DR. SANDHAM,

CCII WAGNER, CCII JACKSON and T.

FELKER,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO: CIV S 041367 MCE GGH P

STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL OF

DEFENDANTS DIAL, SANDHAM AND

BROWN

///

///

Case 2:04-cv-01367-MCE -GGH Document 42 Filed 12/02/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 Murray v. HDSP [Civ S 04-1367 MCE GGH P]Stipulation for Dismissal Page 2

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties to this action that

defendants LINO DIAL, M.D., RICHARD SANDHAM, M.D. and DR. BROWN be, and

hereby are, dismissed, with prejudice, from the above-captioned action, pursuant to FRCP

41(a)(1), each side to bear its own costs and attorneys’ fees.

Dated: 11/18/05

By: /s/ KATHLEEN J. WILLIAMS 

KATHLEEN J. WILLIAMS, CSB #127021

Attorneys for defendants GLENN JAMES, M.D.,

JEFFREY ROHLFING, M.D. L. DIAL, M.D.,

ROGER COX, M.D., S. MICHAEL ROCHE,

M.D., RICHARD SANDHAM, M.D.,

HAROLD WAGNER, CCII, DANETTE

JACKSON, CCII and TOM FELKER

Dated: 

By:/s/ JAMES TAYLOR MURRAY original signature retained by attorney

JAMES TAYLOR MURRAY, plaintiff In Pro Per

IT IS SO ORDERED

Dated: 12/2/05 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows

_________________________________

 Judge

mur1367.sti

Case 2:04-cv-01367-MCE -GGH Document 42 Filed 12/02/05 Page 2 of 2
September 1, 2010 

BY ELECTRONIC FILING

Paul L. Gretch, Esq. 

Director of Office of International 

 Aviation 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Ave., S.E. 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

RE: Indefinite Renewal of Blanket Route Integration

Docket DOT-OST-2005-22228

Dear Mr. Gretch: 

Spirit Airlines respectfully requests the Department renew its Blanket Route Integration 

Authority for an indefinite duration. On January 3, 2006, by Order 2006-1-1, the Department 

awarded Spirit’s current certificate for a term of five (5) years, which is set to expire on March 6, 

2011. This request is made pursuant to the Department’s email notice issued August 27, 2010, 

announcing that it would renew interested U.S. carrier certificates for an indefinite duration, if 

notified of the carrier’s request by September 8, 2010. In making this request, Spirit invokes the 

automatic extension provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §558(c), as 

implemented by 14 CFR Part 377. 

 Respectfully submitted, 

 

 Joanne W. Young 

 Counsel for 

 Spirit Airlines, Inc. 

 

cc: Esta Rosenberg via email 

Thuy Cooper via email 

Service List 
Certificate of Service 

I certify that on this 1st Day of September, 2010, a copy of the foregoing letter served 

by email on the following persons: 

bruce.rabinovitz@wilmerhale.com 

david.heffernan@wilmerhale.com 

jeffrey.manley@united.com 

sllunsford@fedex.com 

anbird@fedex.com 

gbleopard@fedex.com 

carl.nelson@aa.com 

benjamin.slocum@usairways.com 

howard_kass@usairways.com 

bill.evans@dlapiper.com 

bkeiner@crowell.com 

mrosia@crowell.com 

lhalloway@crowell.com 

dan.weiss@coair.com 

hershel.kamen@coair.com 

cdonley@ssd.com 

msinick@ssd.com 

sametta.c.barnett@delta.com 

sascha.vanderbellen@delta.com 

scott.mcclain@delta.com 

jeff.morgan@delta.com 

kquinn@pillsburywinthrop.com 

anita.mosner@hklaw.com 

sophy.chen@hklaw.com 

bob.kneisley@wnco.com 

dhainbach@ggh-airlaw.com 

kevin.montgomery@polaraircargo.com 

dpdean@jamhoff.com 

dvaughan@kelleydrye.com 

efaberman@wileyrein.com 

dpdean@jamhoff.com 

eskraft@jamhoff.com 

bill@mietuslaw.com 

recohn@hhlaw.com 

cjsimpson@zsrlaw.com 

jhill@dlalaw.com 

jrichardson@johnlrichardson.com 

mcmillin@woa.com 

mroller@rollerbauer.com 

pmurphy@lopmurphy.com 

robert.land@jetblue.com 

rsilverberg@sgbdc.com 

mgoldman@sgbdc.com 

rpommer@atlasair.com 

slachter@lachter-clements.com 

russell.bailey@alpa.org 

dwight.moore@ustranscom.mil 

byerlyjr@state.gov 

john.allen@faa.gov 

donna.kooperstein@usdoj.gov 

esta.rosenberg@dot.gov 

thuy.cooper@dot.gov 

 

 

 ______________________ 

 Nury A. Turkel