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

DONALD CRAWFORD,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2452 WBS KJM PS

vs.

WE HALL, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

By order filed May 4, 2005, plaintiff's amended complaint was dismissed and

thirty days leave to file a second amended complaint was granted. On May 12, 1005 and August

4, 2005 plaintiff filed documents with the court that do not comply with the May 4th order. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed

without prejudice. See Local Rule 11-110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within ten days

after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections

with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings

/////

/////

Case 2:04-cv-02452-WBS -KJM Document 25 Filed 08/16/05 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

and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified

time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153

(9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: August 15, 2005.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

craw2452.fta

Case 2:04-cv-02452-WBS -KJM Document 25 Filed 08/16/05 Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 23.1








               CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

We  hereby  consent  to  the  incorporation  of  our  report,  dated  March  27,
2002,included in this Form 10-KSB in the previously filed Registration Statement
of  Sitestar  Corporation  and  subsidiaries  on Form S-8 (File  No.  333-50946,
effective November 30, 2000).



/s/  STONEFIELD JOSEPHSON, INC.
-------------------------------
STONEFIELD JOSEPHSON, INC.

Santa Monica, California
April 15, 2002
No. 65529.

#### Ringler Dorin, Inc., by Rohner Gehrig & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 60/24177 (New York).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

From a review of the record in this case, the court found nothing tending in any way to overcome the presumption of correctness attaching to the classification by the collector. The protest was, therefore, overruled.
Exhibit 32.01

                            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 Essential Innovations Technology
Corp. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended July 31, 2004, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Jason McDiarmid, Chief Executive Officer 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, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

         (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 result of
                  operations of the Company.



/s/ Jason McDiarmid
---------------------------
Jason McDiarmid
Chief Executive Officer
September 20, 2004

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
EXHIBIT 13.2

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

In connection with the Annual Report
of Chartwell Technology Inc.(the Company) on Form 20-F for the year
ended October 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), I, Don Gleason, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

| | 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
Company.
| | -- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | Signed"Don Gleason"
Don Gleason
Chief Executive Officer
April 28, 2004
| | ----------------------------------------------------------------------

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-1125

KENNETH AJAGHA,

Petitioner,

versus

U.S. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Immigration & Naturalization Service. (A29-003-661)

Submitted: August 22, 1996 Decided: September 4, 1996

Before HALL, MICHAEL, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Randall L. Johnson, Arlington, Virginia, for Petitioner. Frank W.

Hunger, Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Lindemann, Assistant

Director, Joan E. Smiley, Senior Litigation Counsel, Office of

Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,

Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Kenneth Ajagha, a native Nigerian, appeals from a Board of

Immigration Appeals ("BIA") order that denied his motion to reopen

the decision of the Immigration Judge finding him deportable. We

affirm.

We review the BIA's denial of a motion to reopen under an

abuse of discretion standard. INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323

(1992). Denial of a motion to reopen "must be reviewed with extreme

deference," since immigration statutes do not contemplate reopening

and the applicable regulations disfavor motions to reopen. M.A. v.

INS, 899 F.2d 304, 308 (4th Cir. 1990) (in banc).

Ajagha seeks to reopen based on his recent marriage to an

American citizen with a young son. In light of Ajagha's criminal

history, a marriage entered into during the pendency of the

deportation proceeding does not require a reopening of the case.

Therefore, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Ajagha's

motion to reopen.

Accordingly, we affirm the BIA's order. 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.

AFFIRMED
**Exhibit 10.16**

 

**FIRST AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT**

 

**THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT**(“Amendment”)is made and entered into by and between **Cano Petroleum, Inc.**,a Delaware corporation with its principal executive offices in Fort Worth, Texas(the “Company”), and **Ben Daitch**, anindividual currently residing in Dallas County, Texas (“Employee”), effectiveas of the 31st day of December, 2008 (the “AmendmentEffective Date”).

 

**WHEREAS**, the Company and Employee entered into that certainEmployment Agreement dated June 23, 2008 (the “Agreement”); and

 

**WHEREAS**, the Company and Employee desire to amend, alter,modify, and change the provisions of the Agreement to bring the provisions intocompliance with Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, asamended;

 

**NOW THEREFORE**, for and in consideration of the mutualbenefits to be obtained hereunder and other good and valuation consideration,the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged and confessed, theCompany and Employee do hereby agree to amend, alter, modify and change theAgreement, as of the Amendment Effective Date as follows:

 

**1.             Section 12 ofthe Agreement is hereby adding the following new sentence at the end of thefirst paragraph of said Section:**

 

Subjectto Section 18 below, all payments made pursuant to this Section 12shall be paid in a single lump sum within ten (10) days following Employee’stermination of employment, and any provision of in-kind benefits hereundershall not affect the in-kind benefits provided in any other taxable year.

 

**2.             Except asspecifically amended hereby, the Agreement remains in full force and effect asoriginally written**.

 

**Signatures**

 

Toevidence the binding effect of the covenants and agreements described above,the parties hereto have executed this Amendment effective as of the date firstwritten above.

 
|   |       | THE  COMPANY:             |
|--------|------------|---------------------------|
|   |       |                      |
|   | ** ** | **CANO  PETROLEUM, INC.** |
|   | ** ** | ** **                |
|   |       |                      |
|   |       | By:                       |      /s/ S. Jeffrey  Johnson |
|   |       |                      | S.  Jeffrey Johnson, Chairman and CEO |
|   |       |                      |
|   |       | EMPLOYEE:                 |
|   |       |                      |
|   |       |                      |
|   |       | By:                       |      /s/ Ben Daitch |
|   |       |                      | Ben  Daitch |

 

----
EXHIBIT B 

Case 1:13-cv-01555-GK Document 13-4 Filed 10/31/13 Page 1 of 5
Exhibit 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on(i) Form S-16 (Nos. 2-51894, 2-55664, 2-63470 and 2-75654), (ii) Form S-8 (Nos.2-77752, 33-10747, 33-24934, 33-33018, 33-54403, 33-54443, 33-54555, 333-08059, 333-08087,333-60839, 333-42178 and 333-53908), (iii) Form S-3 (Nos. 2-84910, 33-26314,33-23880, 33-42698, 33-44871, 33-45091, 33-46999, 33-54317, 33-69432, 333-04385,333-40869, 333-44421, 333-55921, 333-68257, 333-54896, 333-55866, 333-91257, 333-91316-02,333-102963 and 333-102962-02) and (iv) Form S-4 (No. 333-102873) of Kinder Morgan,Inc. of our report dated February 21, 2003 relating to the financial statements, whichappears in this Form 10-K, and of our report dated February 21, 2003 relating to thefinancial statements of Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P., which appears in KinderMorgan Energy Partners, L.P.'s Annual Report on Form 10-K which is incorporated byreference in this Form 10-K.

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLPHouston, TexasFebruary 25, 2003
Exhibit





Exhibit 10.3



AMENDMENT NO. 12
TO THE
SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY
NUCLEAR FACILITIES NON-QUALIFIED CPUC DECOMMISSIONING
MASTER TRUST AGREEMENT
FOR
SAN ONOFRE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATIONS


This Amendment No. 12 made this 18th day of February, 2016, by and between San Diego Gas & Electric Company (“Company”) and The Bank of New York Mellon, a New York state bank, successor by operation of law to Mellon Bank, N.A (“Trustee”).
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 2.10 of the Nuclear Facilities Non-Qualified Decommissioning Master Trust for San Onofre Nuclear Generating Stations dated as of June 29, 1992, as amended (the “Agreement”) between the Company and the Trustee, the parties specifically reserve the right to amend the Agreement;
NOW, THEREFORE, the Company and the Trustee agree as follows:
		
	1.
	Effective as of March 1, 2016, the Fee Schedule attached as Exhibit C to the Agreement shall be amended by deleting the fee description set forth under the title of “Manual activity charge” in its entirety and replacing it with the following:  


“Manual Intervention* where automated solution exists (in addition to transaction fee)    $100.00
*Manual Intervention is defined as transactions not being transmitted to BNY Mellon electronically via standard SWIFT/ISO formatted messages (including instructions that require repair) following SMPG and ISITC best practices, or, via Workbench, our secure, on-line transaction and reporting system.”
		
	2.
	Each Party hereby represents and warrants to the others that it has full authority to enter into this Amendment No. 12 upon the terms and conditions hereof and that the individual executing this Amendment No. 12 on its behalf has the requisite authority to bind that Party.




IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company, the Trustee, and the California Public Utilities Commission have set their hands and seals in agreement to these amendments as of the latest date set forth below.




SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY




		
	By:
	________________________________________




		
	Date:
	________________________________________




		
	Attest:
	________________________________________






THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON




		
	By:
	________________________________________




		
	Date:
	________________________________________




		
	Attest:
	________________________________________






CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION




		
	By:
	________________________________________




		
	Date:
	________________________________________




		
	Attest:
	________________________________________










Exhibit 10.3
No. 44993.

#### Protests 882833-G, etc., of Saks & Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of atomizers similar to those the subject of Abstract 44140. The claim at 60 percent under paragraph 218 (f) was therefore sustained.
No. 47380.

#### Protests 987131-G, etc., of M. V. Jenkins (Seattle).

Opinion by

Walker, J.

It was stipulated that the lumber in question is similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Seaboard Lumber Sales Co.*v. *United States*(5 Cust. Ct. 161, C. D. 391). In accordance therewith it was held that the tax imposed should have been assessed on the basis of the condition in which imported, and that no addition should have been made for the planing, tonguing, and grooving. Protests sustained to this extent.
No. 59579.

protests 270626-K, etc. (New York).

#### Associated Dry Goods Corp. (Lord & Taylor Div.) et al. *v.*United States,

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.
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

 On the same day, plaintiff filed an addendum thereto requesting, inter alia, a hearing on 1

October 30, 2005 and appointment of a special master. Plaintiff’s prior request for appointment

of a special master was denied by order filed May 10, 2005 and nothing in the record supports the

renewed request. The renewed request for appointment of a special master and for a hearing will

be denied.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MIGUEL E. DIAZ, 

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2375 MCE JFM P

vs.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. By order filed September 20, 2005, plaintiff was

granted thirty days in which to file a second amended complaint. On October 4, 2005, plaintiff

filed a document styled “Motion for EMERGENCY Injunctive and Declaratory Relief.” As 1

plaintiff was advised in the September 20, 2005 order, the court will not entertain any motion for

injunctive relief unless and until plaintiff has filed a proper complaint on which this action can

proceed. Plaintiff’s motion will be denied without prejudice.

Case 2:04-cv-02375-MCE -JFM Document 41 Filed 10/24/05 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, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s October 4, 2005 motion for injunctive relief is denied without

prejudice; and

2. Plaintiff’s October 4, 2005 request for hearing and for appointment of a special

master is denied. 

DATED: October 21, 2005. 

12

diaz2375.o

Case 2:04-cv-02375-MCE -JFM Document 41 Filed 10/24/05 Page 2 of 2
Case 2:04-cv-02352-DFL-PAN   Document 15    Filed 12/05/05   Page 1 of 2

Case 2:04-cv-02352-DFL-PAN   Document 15    Filed 12/05/05   Page 2 of 2

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2012-07-25T21:59:29-0400
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
No. 55259.

#### Barnet Bros. Leather Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 134665-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of reptile skins the same in all material respects as those passed upon in *Fleming-Joffe, Ltd.*v. *United States*(25 Cust. Ct. 56, C. D. 1263), the claim for free entry under paragraph 1765 was sustained.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 47 (Monday, March 12, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11011-11012]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-4388]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP07-326-000]


Kern River Gas Transmission Company; Notice of Proposed Changes 
in FERC Gas Tariff

March 6, 2007.
    Take notice that on March 1, 2007, Kern River Gas Transmission 
Company (Kern River) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas 
Tariff, Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets, to become effective 
April 1, 2007:

Second Revised Eighteenth Revised Sheet No. 5
Second Revised Fourteenth Revised Sheet No. 5-A
Second Revised Sixteenth Revised Sheet No. 6

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must 
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of 
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, 
motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of 
Section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). 
Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that 
document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on 
or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to 
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an 
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 
20426.

[[Page 11012]]

    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription'' 
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail 
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For 
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#7e383b2c3d31101217101b2d0b0e0e110c0a3e181b0c1d50191108"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="01474453424e6f6d686f64527471716e737541676473622f666e77">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

Philis J. Posey,
Acting Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-4388 Filed 3-9-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
NO. 07-07 -050 2-CR IN THE CO UR T OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL A FEB RU ARY5, 2008

_________

_________

_________

___ T ERRY GOODMAN, APP ELL ANT

V. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, APPEL LEE

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE DRUG IMP AC T COU RT OF J EF FE RS ON COU NT Y; NO . 992 89; H ON ORABLE LAR RY GI ST, J UD GE

_________

_________

_________

____ Before CAMPBE LL a nd HANCOCK an d PIRT LE, JJ. ME MO RA ND UM OPI NI ON Appel lan t, Terr

y Good man, acti ng pro s e, file d a d ocumentw it h thi s C our t on Dec ember

21, 2007, enti tl ed “ Peti ti on for Di sc re ti onar y R ev iew ,” w hic h, as w e read t he docu me nt, raises issue s re gard ing the me rits of his conviction and sente ncing in cause number 99289 in th e D ru g Impact C our t of Je ff erson Cou nty . W e di smi ss for w ant o f jur is dicti on.2

This C our

t’ s a ppel la te jur is dicti on i s g enerall y l imi ted t o c ases appeal ed from t ri al cour ts w it hin o u r d ist ri ct. T EX . G OV ’ T C OD E A NN . § 22.201 (V er non 200 4) . Appel lan t ide nti fies no appl ic abl e ex cept ion to thi s g eneral ru le. Fur ther , w e tak e j udi ci al noti ce that a c ase search o f t h e N int h D is tr ict C our t of Appeal s’ s w ebsi te re v eal s that an appeal of t he jud g ment entered in caus e number 99289 in the D ru g Impac t C our t of Je ff erson Co u n ty

i s c ur re ntl y

pendi ng before that Cou rt . App ellanthas iden tif ied no auth ority for our j urisdiction to con sider this ap pea l, espe cially as itappears t hat t he appe al is cu rrentl y pendi ng before another C our t. For thes e reason s, w e c oncl ude t hat w e lack jur is dicti on ov er

appel lan t’ s a ttempt ed appeal . Acc ordin g ly , i t i s d is mis sed.
Mackey K. Hancock Justice Do not p ubl is h.
WnjCERSON 

HOZUBEN 

ioKf>titEErr,sun-ei05 

LMHORACCVAKHSOI 

TEL' (WT) E7B-52P7 

FAX: (MT) 2TM291 

SERVED OCTOBER 13, 2011 

VJAShlWGTOl^ DC 

ZOil GCi !U A ^^U l 

In th e Mat1:er of: ) 

) 

} FAA Docket No. CPlOWMOOi;: 

Tdl FREIGHT ) DMS NO.. FAA-2010-107 9 

) Judge RICHARD C. GOODWIN 

(PROPOSED) ORDER GRANTING TGI'S 

MOTION FOR AN ADDITIONAL TWO-DAY aXTENSIQN OF TIME 

Having reviewed TGl's Non-Opposed Motion fo r an Additiona l 

Two-Day Extensio n of Timer the motion is GRANTED. TGI Freight 

shall have until Friday, Octot)e:i: 14, 2011, in which to file its 

opposition to the FAA'? Motion for Decision. No further 

extensions will be granted. 

DATED this /3 day of /O r.TO<A^A_, 2011. 

Honorable Richard C. Goodwin 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 
FAADocketNo CPI0NM0()12 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

SERVICE LIST 

ORIGINAL* ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430, 

Wilbur Wright Building—Suite 2W1000' 

ONE COPY 

Rebecca J. Hozubin, Respondent's Counsel 

Wilkcrson Hozubin 

310 K Street, Suite 405 

Anchorage, AK 99501 

TEL: 9Q1-116-5191 

FAX: 907-276-5291 

Howard L. Martin, Jr., Complainant's Counsel 

Regional Counsel, Office of Regional Counsel, AAL-7 

Alaskan Region 

Federal Aviation Administration 

222 W.?"" Avenue//J4 

Anchorage, AK 9951 :?-7587 

TEL: 907-271-5273 

FAX: 907-271-2800 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative taw Judge 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Office of Hcanngs, M-20, 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: Attorney-Advisor 202o66-2139 

-Legal Assistant 202-366-5121 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

' Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by e.xpcdiled courier, use Uie folJowing address: FederaJ 

Aviation Adniinistration, 600 Independence Avenue. S.W.. Wilbur Wright Building—Suite 2W1000, Wasliington, 

DC 20591; Atleiition: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.