alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
May 28, 2015 

 

Mr. Paul Olsen 

128 Brookhollow Road 

Mountain Top, PA 18707 

Dear Mr. Olsen: 

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption. It 

explains why we can not process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days. 

Why We Can Not Process Your Request 

We entered your April 20, 2015, exemption request on behalf into the public docket 

(No. FAA-2015-1072), but we are unable to process your request any further. The 

information you sent does not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For 

us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of the following: 

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the 

relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief. 

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption 

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you 

seek an exemption. 

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request. 

What You Should Do 

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described 

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your 

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption. 
2 

If We Do Not Hear From You 

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you 

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

Brenda Robeson 

Program Analyst, Airmen and 

 Airspace Rules Division 

Enclosure
#### Henry Sheldon and another, *Respondents, v.*Henry Clews, Appellant.

Judgment and order reversed and new trial ordered, costs to abide event. Opinion by Smith, P. J.
#### In the Matter of John W. Brown, a Private in the Thirteenth Regiment.

Order reversed, with twenty-five dollars costs. Opinion by Barnard, P. J.
#### Emily Ringling v. Ida Ringling North and John North, as Executors of the Last Will and Testament of John Ringling, deceased, *et al.*

176 So. 765.

En Banc.

Order Entered October 27, 1937.

*Milam, Mcllvaine & Milam,*for Appellant;

*Cary D. Landis,*Attorney General, *H. E. Carter*and *John L. Graham,-*Assistant Attorneys General, *John F. Burket*and *Henry L. Williford,*for Appellees.

• Ellis, C. J.

Grant leave to file petition for' leave to file bill in nature of bill of review without suggestion by this Court, or inference to be derived from the granting of the order, that the allegations' of the proposed bill, a copy of which is attached to the motion, are deemed to be sufficient by this court to justify the granting by the court below of lief to file such a bill; that the motion to stay this cause on appeal, pending the filing and disposition of a bill of review below, be granted.

• Whitfield, Brown, Buford and Chapman, J. J., concur.
<PAGE>

                                                                 EXHIBIT 10.10.1

January 22, 2001

Mr. Robert D. Glynn, Jr., Chairman
CEO and President
PG&E Corporation
One Market, Spear Tower, Suite 2400
San Francisco, CA  94105

Dear Bob:

As you know, the Board of Directors recently approved a Senior Executive
Retention program for a small group of key senior officers.  You are included in
that group.  Under this program, you will receive a grant of phantom PG&E
Corporation restricted stock units granted under the PG&E Corporation Long-Term
Incentive Plan.  The amount of your grant is $6,000,000 and it translates into
615,385 units calculated at the closing price of PG&E Corporation common stock
on January 22, 2001, of $9.75 per share.

Your grant of phantom PG&E Corporation restricted stock units is effective
January 22, 2001, and will vest on December 31, 2004, subject to either one of
the following conditions:

  -  50 percent will automatically vest on December 31, 2004. The remaining 50
     percent will vest on December 31, 2004 only if the Corporation's
     performance, as measured by relative Total Shareholder Return (TSR) on a
     cumulative basis over four years, is at or above the 55th percentile of its
     comparator group; or

  -  if, at the end of the third year of the grant, December 31, 2003, the
     Corporation's performance as measured by relative TSR on a cumulative
     basis, is at or above the 75th percentile of its comparator group, the
     entire grant will vest.

You may elect to defer your actual award payments under the PG&E Corporation
Supplemental Retirement Savings Plan prior to the award cliff-vesting.  Such
deferrals will be made in PG&E Corporation phantom stock units on the first
business day of January of the year following vesting.  Awards not deferred will
be paid either entirely in PG&E Corporation stock or half in PG&E Corporation
stock and half in cash in January of the year following vesting.

Sincerely,

BRENT G. STANLEY
(V.D. 115)

#### Manca, Inc. *v.*United States

Entry Nos. 503291; 961642.

(Decided November 23, 1960)

*Eugene R. Pickrell*for the plaintiff.

*George Gochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Oliver, Chief Judge:

This matter is before me on remand from classification proceedings decided by the first division of this court in *Manca, Inc.*v. *United States,*43 Cust. Ct. 406, Abstract 63514. The conclusion therein, and the judgment issued pursuant thereto, *402were to tbe effect that the protests had been prematurely filed and the matter was remanded to a single judge in reappraisement to determine the proper dutiable values in the manner provided by law. (28 U.S.C.§ 2636(d).) ■

The case has been submitted on a written stipulation, reading as follows:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between tbe attorneys for tbe parties hereto that tbe merchandise covered by tbe above remand of protest consists of Microscopes and Oases, containers for said microscopes, which were the subject of a judgment and decision by the First Division of this Court in the case of *Manca, Inc.*v. *United States,*Abstract 63514, on November 13, 1959, wherein it is stated “* * * remand the matter, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28, U.S.O. § 2636(d), for further proceedings before a single judge for determination of the value of the imported merchandise in the manner provided for by law.”

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that at the time of exportation of such merchandise to the United States, the price at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade for exportation to the United States was as follows:

> Merchandise United States

> 59-17286/25369-58 5 Stands for stereo binocular dollars per each

> microscopes GRAPY-GOZAX $281.76 less 28%

> 5 Wooden cabinets for same 19.68 less 28% 59-18596/25003-58

> 3 Greenought microscopes GRAPY and objectives $182.97 less 25%

> 3 Wooden cases for same 13.83 less 25%

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that there was no foreign value for such or similar merchandise. higher

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the above remand of protest may be deemed to be submitted for decision upon this stipulation.

On the agreed facts, I find that the proper basis for appraisement of the articles in question, as hereinabove identified, is export value, as defined in section 402(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, and that such statutory value for each class of merchandise is as set forth in the stipulation of submission embodied herein.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
Case: 2:10-cv-00131-MHW-NMK Doc #: 116 Filed: 01/02/13 Page: 1 of 24  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:10-cv-00131-MHW-NMK Doc #: 116 Filed: 01/02/13 Page: 2 of 24  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:10-cv-00131-MHW-NMK Doc #: 116 Filed: 01/02/13 Page: 3 of 24  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:10-cv-00131-MHW-NMK Doc #: 116 Filed: 01/02/13 Page: 4 of 24  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:10-cv-00131-MHW-NMK Doc #: 116 Filed: 01/02/13 Page: 5 of 24  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:10-cv-00131-MHW-NMK Doc #: 116 Filed: 01/02/13 Page: 6 of 24  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:10-cv-00131-MHW-NMK Doc #: 116 Filed: 01/02/13 Page: 7 of 24  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:10-cv-00131-MHW-NMK Doc #: 116 Filed: 01/02/13 Page: 8 of 24  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:10-cv-00131-MHW-NMK Doc #: 116 Filed: 01/02/13 Page: 9 of 24  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:10-cv-00131-MHW-NMK Doc #: 116 Filed: 01/02/13 Page: 10 of 24  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:10-cv-00131-MHW-NMK Doc #: 116 Filed: 01/02/13 Page: 11 of 24  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:10-cv-00131-MHW-NMK Doc #: 116 Filed: 01/02/13 Page: 12 of 24  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:10-cv-00131-MHW-NMK Doc #: 116 Filed: 01/02/13 Page: 13 of 24  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:10-cv-00131-MHW-NMK Doc #: 116 Filed: 01/02/13 Page: 14 of 24  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:10-cv-00131-MHW-NMK Doc #: 116 Filed: 01/02/13 Page: 15 of 24  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:10-cv-00131-MHW-NMK Doc #: 116 Filed: 01/02/13 Page: 16 of 24  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:10-cv-00131-MHW-NMK Doc #: 116 Filed: 01/02/13 Page: 17 of 24  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:10-cv-00131-MHW-NMK Doc #: 116 Filed: 01/02/13 Page: 18 of 24  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:10-cv-00131-MHW-NMK Doc #: 116 Filed: 01/02/13 Page: 19 of 24  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:10-cv-00131-MHW-NMK Doc #: 116 Filed: 01/02/13 Page: 20 of 24  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:10-cv-00131-MHW-NMK Doc #: 116 Filed: 01/02/13 Page: 21 of 24  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:10-cv-00131-MHW-NMK Doc #: 116 Filed: 01/02/13 Page: 22 of 24  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:10-cv-00131-MHW-NMK Doc #: 116 Filed: 01/02/13 Page: 23 of 24  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:10-cv-00131-MHW-NMK Doc #: 116 Filed: 01/02/13 Page: 24 of 24  PAGEID #: <pageID>

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2015-05-08T15:19:34-0400
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
### Page 1 of 3 **Disposition Comments Docket No:**  

### FAA - 201 3 - 0543 These comments are in **Directorate ID:** 

### 201 2 -NM - 202 - AD response to an SNPRM Originating Office Tracking No.: **Next Step:** FRAN SNPRM 

### N o C omments/Only

Supportive Comments Received

– If this box is checked, no signatures are required. 

### Has the reference d service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? I f ye s, lis t latest revision and attach a cop y. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance. Instructions: Summarize all comments **by issue** (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of each issue. **All comments relating to the sam e issue should be discussed together.**  Do not list all of the issues from one commenter togeth er. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA - IR - M - 8040.1C Chapter 9. **ISSUE 1:** Select one o

f the following : If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree with because We disagree with because

Make the following changes to the AD: If **NO** , we don’t agree because **ISSUE 2**  **:** Select one of the following :

If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree w ith because We disagree with because Make the following changes to the AD:

### Page 2 of 3

If **NO** , we don’t agree because **For additional issues, do uble**  **- click**  **here**

### Page 3 of 3 **S ignature Section**  Signature indicates concurrence with this action. Originating Office Tracking No.: **ASE** Printed Name **: Date** 

**Branch Man ager**  **Date**
(V. D. 12)

#### Selsi Company, Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 734847, etc.

(Decided September 16, 1954)

*Lane, Young & Fox (William H. Fox*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

*Warren E. Burger,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Oliver, Chief Judge:

These matters are presently before me on a remand from a classification proceeding decided by the first division of this court in *Selsi Company, Inc.*v. *United States,*32 Cust. Ct. 490, Abstract 58083. The judgment entered therein stated: “* * * that the matters be remanded to a single judge in reappraisement pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U. S. C. § 2636 (d).”

The matters have been submitted for decision upon an agreed statement of facts entered into by and between counsel for the respective parties hereto.

Upon the agreed facts, I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. § 1402 (d)), to be the proper basis for determining the values of the involved merchandise and that such values are as set forth in schedule “A,” hereto attached and made a part hereof.

I further find such values to be the dutiable values of said merchandise.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.

> Schedule “A”

> *Remand of protest No. Entry No. Merchandise United States dollars per each*

> 221300-K/3464-53 760132 Binoculars with cases

> 10 pcs. Miralux 8 x 30 Binoculars_ 33. 27

> Carrying cases_ 2. 50

> plus cases and packing

> 4 pcs. Supralux 8 x 40 Binoculars_ 50. 19

> Carrying cases_ 4. 50

> plus cases and packing

> 12 pcs. Miralux 8 x 30 Binoculars_ 33. 27

> Carrying cases_ 2. 50

> plus cases and packing

> *497
>       *Remand of protest No. Entry No. Merchandise United States ' dollars per each*

> 221300-K/3464-53 866026 Binoculars with cases

> 12 pcs. 10 x 35 Binoculars_ 17.01

> Carrying cases_ 2. 25

> plus cases and packing

> 5 pcs. 12 x 37 Binoculars_ 17. 72

> Carrying cases_ 2. 25

> plus cases and packing

> 12 pcs. 8 x 40 Binoculars_ 14. 43

> Carrying cases_ 2. 00

> plus cases and packing

> 222091-K/5862-53 828853 Binoculars with cases

> 200 pcs. Art. No. 4762, 6 x 15 Binoculars_ 6. 10

> Carrying cases_ 0. 50

> net packed

> 50 pcs. Art. No. 7149, 6 x 18 Binoculars_ 13. 20

> Carrying cases_ 1. 00

> net packed

> 756110 Binoculars with cases

> 12 pcs. 10 x 35 Binoculars_ 17. 01

> Carrying cases_ 2. 25

> plus cases and packing

> 6 pcs. 8 x 30 Binoculars_ 17. 72

> Carrying eases_ 2. 25

> plus cases and packing

> 829283 Binoculars with cases

> 6 pcs. 12 x 37 Binoculars_ 17. 72

> Carrying cases_ 2. 25

> plus cases and packing

> 6 pcs. 12 x 37 Binoculars_ 17. 72

> Carrying cases_ 2. 25

> plus cases and packing

> *498
>       *Remand of protest No. Entry No. Merchandise United States dollars per each*

> 222091-K/5862-53 769463 Binoculars with cases

> 200 pcs. No. 4762, 6 x 15 Binoculars_ 6. 20

> Carrying cases_ 0. 50

> net packed

> 853675 Binoculars with cases

> 50 pcs. Art. No. 4728, 7 x 50 Binoculars_ 13. 20

> Carrying cases_ 1. 25

> net packed
No. 64243.

protest 58/24631 (New Tort).

#### Sister Mary Loretto *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with oral stipulation of counsel that the involved crucifixes are parts of shrines and that they were imported in good faith for the use of the Marylmoll Sisters, an order organized and operated exclusively for religious purposes, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
#### S. E. Laszlo et al. *v.*United States

No. 6635.

Entry No. 737947, etc.

Invoices dated London, England, December 29, 1941, etc.

Certified January 23, 1942, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., February 13, 1942, etc.

(Decided December 17, 1946)

*John D. Rode*for the plaintiffs.

*Paul P. Rao,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Cole, Judge (Abstract):

These appeals for reappraisement of various items of merchandise concern the so-called British purchase tax, described in the law of the United Kingdom entitled, “Finance (No. 2) Act 1940 3 & 4 Geo. 6 Ch. 48.” The said tax was held not to be an item to be,included in foreign value as defined in section 402 (c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended by the Customs Administrative Act of 1938 119 U. S. C. 1940 ed. § 1402 (c)). *United States*v. *Wm. S. Pitcairn Corp.,*33 C. C. P. A. 183, C. A. D. 334.

The agreed set of facts, embodied in the stipulation of submission, establishes that export value, section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. 1940 ed. *226§ 1402 (d)) is the proper basis for appraisement of the instant merchandise, and that such statutory values of the articles in question are the appraised values, less additions made by the importers on entry because of advances in similar cases.
#### *In re*Application of Wm. Vanamee, Rec’r, etc.

*Alfred Ely,*for app’lt; *Willm'd*W. *Baylis,*for resp’t.

Order affirmed, with costs, on the ground that tile attorney-general should have had notice of the application, without considering the other questions.

All c ncur.

Affirming 29 N. Y. State Rep., 198.
#### Alfred Dunhill of London, Inc., et al. *v.*United States

No. 6648.

Entry Nos. 713558; 732036/1.

Invoices dated Fenton, England, July 5, 1941, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., September 11, 1941, etc.

(Decided December 19, 1946)

*John D. Rode*for the plaintiffs.

*Paul P. Rao,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Keefe, Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement listed in schedule A, hereto attached and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

(Stipulation omitted.)

On the agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such values are the appraised values, less the additions made by the importers on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
#### James M. Gano, *Executor, etc., v.*Jane W. McCunn and others. Elizabeth Patterson *v.*Thomas McCunn and others.

Order of October, 1877, affirmed, with ten. dollars costs and disbursements, and order of August, 1882, modified as directed, and affirmed as modified, without costs. Opinion by Macomber, J.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

          - [Project No 77-162] 

In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) regulations contained in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) (18 CFR part 380 [FERC Order No. 486, 52 FR 47897]), the Office of Energy Project's staff (staff) reviewed a proposal to amend the license for the Potter Valley Project, to allow a temporary variance in license required flows for frost protection in Potter Valley for the period March 15-April 14, 2007, and prepared an environmental assessment (EA) for this proposed amendment. In this EA, staff analyzes the impacts of the temporary change in flows on the environmental resources, including fisheries resources of the project area and the protection against economic loss to agricultural interests in Potter Valley. The EA concludes that the proposed action will not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the human environment. 

                    A copy of the EA is attached to Commission order titled “Order Granting License Amendment, and Providing Notice and Opportunity to Intervene and Comment”, issued March 21, 2007 and is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room, located at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426, or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at                     *http://www.ferc.gov*                     using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, call toll-free 1-866-209-3676 or e-mail                     *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov.*                     For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.                 

Philis J. Posey, 

Acting Secretary.

 [FR Doc. E7-6103 Filed 4-2-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
No. 64980.

#### W. A. Gleeson *v.*United States,

protest 59/12521 (St. Albans).

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of prepared or preserved pork similar in all material respects to that the subject of *C. J. Tower & Sons*v. *United States*(43 Cust. Ct. 36, C.D. 2100), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

DA 20-0514

_________________

PAUL WILKIE,

 Plaintiff and Appellant,

 v.

HARTFORD UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE 

COMPANY, a/k/a THE HARTFORD; RICHARD 

L. SPROUT; and SHAUNA SPROUT,

 Defendants and Appellees.

O R D E R

_________________

Pursuant to the Internal Operating Rules of this Court, this cause is classified for 

submission on briefs to a five-justice panel of this Court. 

The Clerk is directed to provide a copy hereof to all counsel of record and to the 

Honorable Rienne McElyea, District Judge.

For the Court,

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

June 30 2021

06/30/2021

Case Number: DA 20-0514
No. 49287.

#### Protests 94301-K, etc., of Thorens, Inc., et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

The protests were dismissed.
No. 55366.

#### Koons, Wilson & Company *v.*United States,

protests 146560-K and 146561-K (Philadelphia).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

Following the authorities eifed'in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.