alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT OFTRANSPORTATION WASHINGTON, D.C.
Application of ) ) 

### TRANSPORTE ) EJECUTIVO AEREO ) S. A DE C. V. ) ) ) ) ) 

### for an exemption pursuantto ) 49

## u.s.c. 40109 ) ) ) ) 

### Docket No. OST-98-4070

APPLICATION OF TRANSPORTE EJECUTIVO AEREO S. A DE C. V. FORRENEWAL OFEXEMPTION

Communications concerning this document may be sentto:

May 18, 2013 Robert Givens Givens & Johnston, PLLC. 950 Echo Lane, Suite 360 Houston, Texas 77024 (713) 932-1540 Counsel for Transporte Ejecutivo Aereo S. A DE C. V.BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATAION WASHINGTON, D.C.
Application of ) ) TRANSPORTE ) EJECUTIVO AEREO ) S.A. DE C.V. ) ) ) ) ) for an exemption pursuant to ) 49 

## u.s.c. 40109 ) ) Docket No. OST-98-4070

APPLICATION OF TRANSPORTE EJECUTIVO AEREO S.A. DE C.V. FORRENEWAL OF EXEMPTION

Pursuantto 49 U.S.C. 40109 and the Department's regulations, Transporte Ejecutivo Aereo, S. A. de C. V. (T.E.A.S.A.) hereby applies for renewal ofits exemption from 49 U.S.C. 41301 which authorizes T.E.A.S.A. to engage in charter foreign air transportation ofpersons andtheir accompanying baggage betweenthe United States and Mexico with small aircraft and, subject to priorDepartment approval, between other countries and the United States. T.E.A.S.A. aiso requests continuation ofits stopover privileges and renewal ofrelieffrom any requirement to obtain advance approval for each Mexico U.S. flight. The Department granted the above authority to T.E.A.S.A. by Notice ofAction Taken dated May 18, 2011. The effective dates ofthe authority granted extended from May 18, 2011 through May 18, 2013. T.E.A.S.A. requests that this authority, which is scheduledto expire on May 18, 2013, be renewed for a period oftwo years or alternatively at least for one year.T.E.A.S.A. invokes the automatic extensionprovisions ofthe Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 558 (c), as implementedby 14 C.P.R. Part 377, to maintain its exemption authority in effectpending a final Department determination on this renewal application. In support ofthis application, T.E.A.S.A. states as follows:

1. The relevant circumstances under which T.E.A.S.A. received its initial grant of exemption authority are unchanged.

2. T.E.A.S.A.'s renewal application is limited in scope and non-controversial. The services Aerodiplomaticproposes to operate are substantially identical to those itperformed during the pastyear, i.e. highly personalizedtransport services to executives ofT.E.A.S.A. and its related companies andtheir invitees using small private business-type aircraft. T.E.A.S.A.'s Mexican authority to engage intransborder charterpassenger services remains in full force and effect, as does its U.S. authoritypursuant to its FAA Part 129 Operations Specifications.

WHEREFORE, T.E.A.S.A. respectfully requests renewal ofits authority to engage in charter foreign air transportation ofpersons and their accompanying baggage with small private aircraft as set forth herein, and such otherreliefas may be inthepublic interest.

May 18, 2013 Robert Givens Givens & Johnston, PLLC Counsel for Transporte Ejecutivo Aereo S.A. DE C.V.
#### Thomas McKeon, *Plaintiff in Error, v.*The People of the State of New York, *Defendants in Error.*

— Conviction and judgment reversed, and proceedings remitted to the Court of Sessions of Wyoming county for a new trial in that court. Opinion by Haight, J.
No. 40273.

#### Petition 5693-R of Lehn & Fink Products Corporation (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

It was established that there was a disagreement between the importer and the appraiser as to the proper dutiable value of the merchandise in question which was vigorously prosecuted. Under the circumstances of the case it was held that the importer was without any intention to defraud the revenue and the petition was granted.
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER  PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2012 (the "Report") of
New Mountain Finance Holdings, L.L.C., New Mountain Finance Corporation and New Mountain Finance AIV Holdings Corporation (the "Registrants"), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof, I, Robert A. Hamwee, the Chief Executive Officer of the Registrants, hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, that:



/s/ ROBERT A. HAMWEEName:

Robert A. HamweeDate:

March 6, 2013


---



QuickLinks
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v DONALD D. HEASTON, Private, U. S. Army, Appellant

19 USCMA 281, 41 CMR 281

*282No. 22,531

March 6, 1970

*Colonel Daniel T. Ghent*and *Lieutenant Colonel Charles W. Schiesser*were on the pleadings for Appellant, Accused.

*Colonel David T. Bryant, Major Edwin P. Wasinger,*and *Major William A, Pope, II,*were on the pleadings for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

Darden, Judge:

The appellant’s conviction for housebreaking, larceny, wrongfully possessing and transferring morphine, in violation of Articles 130, 121, and 134, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC §§ 930, 921, and 934, resulted from his pleas of guilty. He was given a sentence that included a bad-conduct discharge, total forfeitures, and confinement at hard labor for one year.

The single question before this Court is whether the appellant was prejudiced by the law officer's failure to instruct the court members orally on sentencing procedures. Such advice is included in Appellate Exhibit III that was handed to the president of the court after being examined by counsel for both sides. Perhaps the written advice was considered and followed. But, without more, we cannot be sure. United States v Pryor, 19 USCMA 279, 41 CMR 279 (1970).

Accordingly, the decision of the Court of Military Review as to sentence is reversed. The record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Army. A rehearing on the sentence may be ordered.

Judge Ferguson concurs.

Quinn, Chief Judge

(dissenting):

As the majority note, the sentence procedure followed in this case was the same as that in United States v Pryor, 19 USCMA 279, 41 CMR 279 (1970). It is appropriate to note also that, while the accused was subject to a dishonorable discharge and confinement at hard labor for thirty-six years, the court-martial imposed a sentence including a bad-conduct discharge and confinement at hard labor for one year. The leniency of the sentence (United States v Pierce, 19 USCMA 225, 41 CMR 225 (1970)), and the reasons specified in my dissent in *Pryor,*lead me to conclude that the accused was not prejudiced by the irregular sentence proceedings. I would, therefore, affirm the decision of the Court of Military Review.
EX-33.3
(logo) WELLS FARGO

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
Document Custody
1015 10th Avenue Southeast
Minneapolis, MN 55414


ASSESSMENT OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE APPLICABLE SERVICING CRITERIA


Management of the Document Custody Section of the Corporate Trust Services
division of Wells Fargo Bank, National Association (the "Company") is
responsible for assessing compliance with the servicing criteria set forth in
Item 1122(d) of Regulation AB of the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Management has determined that the servicing criteria are applicable in regard
to the servicing platform for the period as follows:

Platform:
Publicly-issued (i.e., transaction-level reporting required under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended) residential mortgage-backed
securities and commercial mortgage-backed securities issued on or after January
1, 2006 for which the Company provides document custody services, excluding any
such securities issued by any agency or instrumentality of the U.S. government
(other than the Federal Deposit Insurance Company) or any government sponsored
entity (the "Platform").


Period:  As of and for the twelve months ended December 31, 2012 (the "Period").

Applicable Servicing Criteria:

The servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d)(1)(iv), 1122(d)(4)(i) and
1122(d)(4)(ii), in regard to the activities performed by the Company with
respect to the Platform (the "Applicable Servicing Criteria"). Management of
the Company has determined that all other servicing criteria set forth in Item
1122(d) are not applicable to the Platform.


With respect to the Platform and the Period, the Company's management provides
the following assertion of compliance with respect to the Applicable Servicing
Criteria:

1. The Company's management is responsible for assessing the Company compliance
with the Applicable Servicing Criteria.

2. The Company management has assessed the Company compliance with the
Applicable Servicing Criteria. In performing this assessment, management used
the criteria set forth by the Securities and Exchange Commission in paragraph
(d) of Item 1122 of Regulation AB.

3. Based on such assessment as of and for the Period, the Company has complied,
in all material respects with the Applicable Servicing Criteria.

KPMG LLP, an independent registered public accounting firm, has issued an
attestation report with respect to management's assertion of compliance with the
Applicable Servicing Criteria as of and for the Period.


WELLS FARGO BANK, National Association

By:    /s/ Shari Gillund
       Shari L. Gillund

Title: Senior Vice President

Dated: February 15, 2013


Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
No. 51103.

#### Protests 51874-K, etc., of B. Dorman et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and following the decisions cited the following allowances were made to compensate for the weight of the inedible substance on the outside of the cheese: (1) *2)4*percent for the cheese similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Scaramelli*v. *United States*(9 Cust. Ct. 270, C. D. 706), Abstract 42146, and Abstract 48269; and (2) 1 percent for the cheese similar to the Reggiano cheese the subject of *Scaramelli*v. *United States, supra.*The protests were sustained to this extent.
#### THE IRVING NATIONAL BANK OF NEW YORK, Appellant, *v.*J. L. ADAMS, Respondent.

*Evidence*— admission *of additional record evidence on appeal*— *not allowed to procure a reversal of the decision below.*

Where a matter of record has been imperfectly made to appear upon th« hearing, and the determination has proceeded upon such evidence, and an appeal has been taken, it is allowable for the purpose of sustaining the proceedings to produce complete record evidence, on the hearing of the appeal, to supply the defect, but it cannot be done for the purpose of producing a reversal of the ■decision appealed from.

Motion for leave to retain in the printed case, upon an appeal from the order made by this General Term, certain papers showing the proceedings in bankruptcy before the United States District *109Court for the District of Louisiana, and extending from page forty-one to fifty-one of the ease.

*G. A. Seixas,*for the motion.

*Charles M.*Marsh, opposed.

Daniels, J.:

The papers desired to be retained as a part of the case were stated to have been presented to the court upon the arguments which took place before the General Term, but they were not used upon the motion resulting in the order from which the appeal was taken. The affidavits of Mr. Luidsey show that he first received them after the hearing of the motion before Mr. Justice Babrett. And the case, as it was made up, upon which the argument was made before the General Term, setting forth the papers upon the hearing of the motion, did not contain those now desired to be added. For that reason, although they may have been presented with the case upon the argument at the General Term, they could not be considered, for the court was bound to hear and decide the appeal taken from the order upon the papers before the Special Term at the time when the motion was there heard and decided. Where a matter of record has been imperfectly made to appear upon the hearing, and the determination has proceeded upon such evidence, then in affirmance of the proceeding, complete record evidence may be received on the hearing of the appeal, to supply the defect, but that is not permitted to be done for the purpose of producing a reversal of the decision from which the appeal has been taken. *(Stilwell*v. *Car*penter, 62 N. Y., 639.)

Under this rule the General Term could not properly consider the records of the Louisiana Bankrupt Court as a portion of the papers before it on the hearing and decision of the appeal taken from the order, and it follows that they should not constitute any portion of the papers upon the appeal taken from the ordér made by the General Term.

A reargument of the appeal before the General Term would be of no advantage to the party appealing. For if the case should be again heard it must necessarily be upon the papers which were before the Special Term on the hearing and decision of the *110motion. The motion which is now being made must accordingly be denied.

Davis, P. J., and Bradt, J., concurred.

Motion denied.
No. 56536.

protests 98878-K, etc. (New York).

#### La Manna, Azema & Farnan, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of grenadine the same in all material respects as that the subject of *La Manna, Azema & Farnan, Inc.*v. *United States*(39 C. C. P. A. 44, C. A. D. 461), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
No. 04-4199

File Name: 05a0964n.06

Filed: December 14, 2005

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

TRI-COUNTY EXTENDED CARE CENTER,

 Petitioner,

v.

MICHAEL O. LEAVITT, SECRETARY,

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF

HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,

 Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

ON PETITION FOR REVIEW OF

A DECISION OF THE

DEPARTMENTAL APPEALS

BOARD, UNITED STATES

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH

AND HUMAN SERVICES 

Before: NELSON, DAUGHTREY, and SUTTON, Circuit Judges.

DAVID A. NELSON, Circuit Judge. This case is here on a petition for review of a

decision of the Departmental Appeals Board, United States Department of Health and Human

Services (“HHS”). The petitioner, Tri-County Extended Care Center, is a long-term care

facility that participates in the federal Medicare and Ohio Medicaid programs. HHS assessed

a civil monetary penalty against Tri-County after a survey of the facility resulted in findings

of non-compliance with certain program requirements.

An administrative law judge (“ALJ”) affirmed the penalty imposed by HHS, and TriCounty sought review before the Departmental Appeals Board. The Board affirmed the

ALJ’s findings that: (1) Tri-County used half side rails on a resident’s bed without
No. 04-4199

Page 2

adequately assessing the risk of entrapment; (2) Tri-County failed to investigate and report

a resident’s injury of unknown cause; (3) Tri-County allowed a resident to develop an

avoidable pressure sore and failed to promote healing of the resident’s pressure sores; and

(4) Tri-County failed to provide appropriate incontinence care to two residents. The facility

challenges each of these findings in its petition for review.

“The findings of [HHS] with respect to questions of fact, if supported by substantial

evidence on the record considered as a whole, shall be conclusive.” 42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7a(e).

The court “do[es] not consider the case de novo, nor resolve conflicts in the evidence, nor

decide questions of credibility.” MeadowWood Nursing Home v. United States Dep’t of

Health and Human Services, 364 F.3d 786, 788 (6th Cir. 2004).

Having reviewed the record, we are satisfied that substantial evidence supports the

agency’s findings. Therefore, and in the absence of any challenge to the amount of the civil

monetary penalty, Tri-County’s petition for review is DENIED.
DISMISS; and Opinion Filed September 10, 2018.

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 18
- 00931
- CR BROOKE MCCANN JORDAN , Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee On Appeal from the 291st Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F15
- 54880
- U 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Lang, Fillmore, and Schenck Opinion by Justice Fillmore Brooke McCann Jordan filed her notice of appeal on A ugust 10, 2018. The clerk’s record, filed August 20, shows Jordan pleaded guilty to the offense of driving while intoxicated with two prior convictions for driving while intoxicated. On June 3, 2016, f ollowing Jordan’s plea agreement with the State, the trial court assessed punishment at ten years in prison, probated for six years , and a $2,000 fi n e . The trial court prepared and signed a certification of the right to appeal, stating the case was a plea bargain case and Jordan had no right to appeal. Sin ce that time, the State has filed several motions to revoke probation, the most recent of which was filed on March 12, 2018. To date, the trial court has not ruled on the State’s March 12th motion

. As a general rule, an appellate court may consider appeal s by criminal defendants only after conviction. Wright v. State , 969 S.W.2d 588, 589 (Tex. App.

– Dallas 1998, no pet.). With– 2

–

regard to cases involving “ regular” probation, t he Texas Legislature has authorized appeal of only two types of orders: (1) an ord er granting probation , and (2) an order revoking probation

. See
Davis v. State , 195 S.W.3d 708, 711 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (discussing Basaldua v. State , 558 S.W.2d 2, 5 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977)). Here, the State’s motion to revoke Jordan’s probation is s till pending in the trial court

. Because there is no order granting the State’s motion, we lack jurisdiction over this case

. We dismiss th is appeal

.

Do Not Publish T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47.2(b) 180931F.U05 /Robert M. Fillmore/ ROBERT M. FILLMORE JUSTICE– 3

– 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT
BROOKE MCCANN JORDAN, Appellant
No. 05

- 18

- 00931

- CR V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 291st Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas. Trial Court Cause No. F15

- 54880

- U. Opinion delivered by Justice Fillmore, Justices Lang and Schenck participating. Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal for want of jurisdiction.
Judgment entered this 10th day of September, 2018.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 21 - 0572 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. JAMES LOWELL MYRAN,

Defendant and Appellant.

**G RANT**  Pursuant to authority granted under Mont. R. App. P. 26(1), the Appellant is given an extension of time until May 15 , 202 3 , to prepare, file, and serve the Appellant’s reply brief. No further extensions will be granted.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

April 13 2023

04/13/2023

Case Number: DA 21-0572
Materials Not Included in

Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket

Docket Number: FAA-2012-1033

Directorate Identifier: 2010NM266AD

A330-27-3102, R07 --- 3/16/07

A330-27-3102, R06 --- 12/16/05

A330-27-3102, R05 --- 7/7/04

A330-27-3102, R04 --- 12/8/03

A330-27-3102, R03 --- 6/20/03

A330-27-3102, R02 --- 11/7/02

A340-27-4107, R07 --- 3/16/07

A340-27-4107, R06 --- 12/16/05

A340-27-4107, R05 --- 12/8/03

A340-27-4107, R04 --- 6/20/03

A340-27-4107, R03 --- 12/4/02

A340-27-4107, R02 --- 9/23/02

A330 MRBR, R11 --- 6/18/08

A340 MRBR, R11 --- 6/18/08

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained in the 

Supplemental AD Docket

MAY BE VIEWED AT: Federal Aviation Administration

Transport Airplane Directorate

Rules Docket

1601 Lind Ave. SW.,

Renton, WA 98057

425.227.1221

DURING THE HOURS OF: 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday,

except Federal holidays.

Form Date: 03/05/2008
Case: 2:10-cv-00965-EAS-TPK Doc #: 70 Filed: 08/07/12 Page: 1 of 10  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:10-cv-00965-EAS-TPK Doc #: 70 Filed: 08/07/12 Page: 2 of 10  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:10-cv-00965-EAS-TPK Doc #: 70 Filed: 08/07/12 Page: 3 of 10  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:10-cv-00965-EAS-TPK Doc #: 70 Filed: 08/07/12 Page: 4 of 10  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:10-cv-00965-EAS-TPK Doc #: 70 Filed: 08/07/12 Page: 5 of 10  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:10-cv-00965-EAS-TPK Doc #: 70 Filed: 08/07/12 Page: 6 of 10  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:10-cv-00965-EAS-TPK Doc #: 70 Filed: 08/07/12 Page: 7 of 10  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:10-cv-00965-EAS-TPK Doc #: 70 Filed: 08/07/12 Page: 8 of 10  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:10-cv-00965-EAS-TPK Doc #: 70 Filed: 08/07/12 Page: 9 of 10  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:10-cv-00965-EAS-TPK Doc #: 70 Filed: 08/07/12 Page: 10 of 10  PAGEID #: <pageID>

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2015-05-08T15:54:24-0400
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
Exhibit 35.1

Servicer Compliance Statement of AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc.

This Annual
Statement as to Compliance is delivered to you pursuant to Section 4.10 (a) of the Sale and Servicing Agreement dated as of May 5, 2010 (the Agreement) and Item 1123 of Regulation AB, executed in connection with the
formation of AmeriCredit Automobile Receivables Trust 2010-2 (the Trust), the issuance of the Notes by the Trust and the closing of the transactions and the execution and delivery of the various documents by General Motors Financial
Company, Inc. (f/k/a AmeriCredit Corp.), AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc. (the Servicer) and AFS SenSub Corp. in connection therewith. The capitalized terms used herein shall have the same meanings as in the Agreement.

The undersigned certifies that I am the Executive Vice President, Accounting Corporate Controller of the Servicer. I further certify as
follows:



| | 1. | I have conducted, or caused to be conducted under my supervision, a review of the Servicer during the preceding period from January 1, 2012 through
December 31, 2012, and its performance under the Agreement.
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | To the best of my knowledge, following such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all its obligations under the Agreement throughout such period, and, to the best of my
knowledge, there has been no default in the fulfillment of any such obligation.
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                     |  |                                 |  |  |  |                      
|------------------------------------ |  | ------------------------------- |  |  |  | ---------------------
|AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc. |  |                                 |  | 
|                                     |  |                                 | 
|By:                                  |  | /s/ Connie Coffey               |  |  |  | Dated: March 26, 2013
|                                     |  | Connie Coffey                   |  |  |  |                      
|                                     |  | Executive Vice President,       |  |  |  |                      
|                                     |  | Accounting Corporate Controller |  |  |  |