alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
In response to: Great Lakes Airline and Silver City service. 

Received: Nov 5, 2010 1:0l pm ; V PARTMENT OF 

XI-101203-002 

,„\N3PA.U 

^ ^ , «. ..._:OPERATiONS 

Dear Senator Bingaman, 

•-i;! pfr ''2 P U: 3^ 

Thank you for your response to Dr. Don Johnson regarding his concerns about Great Lakes Airlines shifting their 

Silver City destination from Albuquerque to Phoenix. 

This is a huge issue for us. It means cutting us off from ABQ and Santa Fe in terms of access to resources, training, 

health professional training and recruitment and public processes. It means that we will no longer be able to fly 

providers to work here on a locum tenens or regularly scheduled sub-specialty care basis, which is part of our plan to 

expand family physician and dentist training in Silver City. Earlier this week I flew down from ABQ with Dr. Doug 

Dye who flies down twice a month for 3 days each to cover Ft. Bayard in-patients. So it is also a medical access and 

coverage issue. Also, 5 of 6 people on the plane that day had business reasons for travel to and from ABQ. 

I think if Great Lakes wants to serve the Phoenix area, fine. However, I also think the purpose of the public subsidy 

they receive is for necessary connections of people to resources and that the Albuquerque ? Silver City route is the on 

ty route that can makes the public subsidy argument. If Great Lakes serves Phoenix for their financial well-being, 

they should lose their public subsidy. 

I don?t think guaranteeing Great Lakes a bottom line was the reason that public funding guaranteeing rural airway 

access was created. 

I am also personally affected by this as my daughter travels to and from ABQ to visit her mother, I travel to ABQ or 

Santa Fe no less than twice a month. I often drive because of the unreliable nature of Great Lakes, however removing 

the option will reduce our connections with the rest of state. HMS staff members use the ABQ route constantly. In 

the future we will all have to drive 4 to 5 hours one way every single time. I know you understand the dilemma. 

Your attention to this issue is greatly appreciated. 

Charlie Alfero
Before the Second Division,

June 3, 1954

No. 58137.

protest 187150-K (Galveston).

#### R. W. Smith *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of seamless steel oil-well casings similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *Winkler-Koch Engineering Co.*(41 C. C. P. A. 121, C. A. D. 540), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
<PAGE>

                                EXHIBIT (10)(a)

                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS
<PAGE>

                        Consent of Independent Auditors



We consent to the reference to our firm under the caption "Independent Auditors"
in the Statements of Additional Information and to the use of our reports (1)
dated February 2, 2001 with respect to the financial statements of certain
subaccounts of PFL Endeavor VA Separate Account, which are available for
investment by contract owners of The Endeavor Variable Annuity, (2) dated
February 2, 2001 with respect to the financial statements of certain subaccounts
of PFL Endeavor VA Separate Account, which are available for investment by
contract owners of The Endeavor ML Variable Annuity and (3) dated February 15,
2001 with respect to the statutory-basis financial statements and schedules of
PFL Life Insurance Company, included in Post-Effective Amendment No. 25 to the
Registration Statement (Form N-4 No. 33-33085) and related Prospectuses of the
Transamerica Landmark Variable Annuity and the Transamerica Landmark ML Variable
Annuity, formerly known as The Endeavor Variable Annuity and The Endeavor ML
Variable Annuity, respectively.


                                             Ernst & Young LLP


Des Moines, Iowa
April 24, 2001
Amyris201410-KEx10.04DARPAMod14




MODIFICATION


TO


TECHNOLOGY INVESTMENT AGREEMENT


BETWEEN
AMYRIS, INC.,
5885 HOLLIS STREET
SUITE 100
EMERYVILLE, CALIFORNIA 94608


AND


THE DEFENSE ADVANCED RESEARCH PROJECTS AGENCY
675 NORTH RANDOLPH STREET
ARLINGTON, VA 22203-2114


CONCERNING


IMPROVING DNA ASSEMBLY AND INTEGRATION ACROSS PLATFORMS WITH
BETTER SYSTEMS AND TOOLS
(LIVING FOUNDRIES)


Agreement No.: HR0011-12-3-0006
Modification No.: P00014
Purchase Request No.: N/A


Total Amount of the Agreement: $8,653,604
Phase 1: $3,358,334
Phase 2 (Option): $5,295,269 
Total Estimated Government Funding: $7,734,309
Phase 1: $3,022,501
Phase 2 (Option): $4,711,808
Contactor Share Contribution: $919,295
Phase 1: $335,834
Phase 2 (Option): $583,461


Funds Obligated By This Modification: $0
Total Funds Obligated To Date: $7,734,309


Authority: Article III(C)(1)



	
					
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 








	
			
	 
	 
	HR0011-12-3-0006
P00014 
Page 2 of 2












The purpose of this modification is to clarify the ACRN (long line of of accounting ) referenced in Modification P00013. As such, the following administrative information (pertaining to Modification No. P00013) applies:




1. Per Modification No. P00013, Article V, “Obligation and Payment,” paragraph C, “Accounting and Appropriation Data,” is revised to reflect the inclusion of the $80,000 (PR No. HR0011412252) provided to Milestone No. 16. The Line of Accounting is shown below (as reflected in the conformed agreement provided as Enclosure 1 to Modification No. P00013):




ACRN AD: 012199 097 0400 000 N 20142015 D 1320 BLTM6 2014.MBT-02.CORE.A DARPA 255 $80,000




2. As noted above, this modification is administrative in nature and is provided only to clarify the accounting line/funding what was added to the agreement via Modification No. P00013. This modification effects no changes to the agreement – the Conformed Copy of the agreement provided as Enclosure 1 to Modification No. P00013 remains unchanged (the above noted accounting line/funding information is captured therein).




3. All terms and provisions of Agreement No. HR0011-12-3-0006 remain in full force and effect.


	
			
	 
	 
	FOR THE DEFENSE ADVANCED
RESEARCH PRODUCTS AGENCY



	 
	 
	/s/ Michael D. Blackstone    2014.11.25

	 
	



	(Signature & Date)

	 
	 
	Michael D. Blackstone

	 
	 
	Agreements Officer
EXHIBIT 10.02

                                    AMENDMENT

                                       TO

                              MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT

     WHEREAS, DEMETER MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation (the
"General Partner") on behalf of MORGAN STANLEY DEAN WITTER SPECTRUM COMMODITY
L.P., a Delaware limited partnership (the "Partnership"), and MORGAN STANLEY
DEAN WITTER COMMODITIES MANAGEMENT, INC., a Delaware corporation (the "Trading
Advisor"), have agreed to amend the Amended and Restated Management Agreement,
dated as of April 1, 2000 (the "Management Agreement"), among the Partnership,
the General Partner, and the Trading Advisor, to change the incentive fee
payable to the Trading Advisor.

     WHEREAS, all provisions contained in the Management Agreement remain in
full force and effect and are modified only to the extent necessary to provide
for the amendment set forth below.

     NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto hereby amend the Management Agreement as
follows:

     1. The annual incentive fee percentage of 20% referred to in Section
6(a)(ii) of the Management Agreement is hereby changed to 17.5%.

     2. The foregoing change shall take effect as of December 1, 2000.



                                  Exh. 10.02-1


<PAGE>


     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment to the Management Agreement has been
executed for and on behalf of the undersigned as of the 30th day of November,
2000.

                                    MORGAN STANLEY DEAN WITTER
                                    SPECTRUM COMMODITY L.P.

                                    By: Demeter Management Corporation,
                                        General Partner


                                    By: /s/Robert E. Murray
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Name:  Robert E. Murray
                                        Title:  President

                                    DEMETER MANAGEMENT CORPORATION


                                    By: /s/Robert E. Murray
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Name:  Robert E. Murray
                                        Title:  President

                                    MORGAN STANLEY DEAN WITTER
                                    COMMODITIES MANAGEMENT, INC.

                                    By: /s/ Wayne D. Peterson
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Name:  Wayne D. Peterson
                                        Title:  President


                                  Exh. 10.02-2
Exhibit 32



CERTIFICATIONS OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER 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 Provide Commerce, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, William Strauss, 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 my 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. That information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



Date: November
10, 2004



/s/ William StraussWilliam StraussChief Executive Officer




In connection
with the Quarterly Report of Provide Commerce, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Rex E. Bosen,
Vice President, Finance and Accounting and principal financial 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 my 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. That information contained in the
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



Date: November 10, 2004



/s/ Rex E. BosenRex E. BosenVice President, Finance and Accountingand Principal Financial Officer
No. 48625.

#### Protests 835274-G, etc., of Rosenblum Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

It was stipulated that the cheese in question is similar to that involved in Abstract 48269. In accordance therewith the claim for an> allowance of 2)4 percent in the weight was sustained.
#### DOROTHY KELLER, *ET AL.,*PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS, v. MICHAEL PASTUCH, *ET AL.,*DEFENDANTS-PETITIONERS.

*Mr. William J. Murray, Mr. James P. McGovern, Jr.*and *Mr. Patrick D. Gonaghan*for the petitioners.

*Mr. Saul G. Schulter*and *Mr. John E. Wolf*for the respondents.

May 29, 1967.

Denied.
Before the Third Division,

May 4, 1945

No. 50163.

#### Protests 975832-G, etc., of Chan & Chan et al. (San Francisco).

*246Opinion by

Cline, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on authority of the decisions cited, the protests were sustained as follows: (1) Bak hop, lotus nuts (hoi shin lien, hoi pak lien), and yuen yuk the same in all material-respects as the merchandise passed upon in *Oy Wo Tong Co.*v. *United States*(5 Cust. Ct. 70, C. D. 372) were held free of duty under paragraph 1669, Tariff Act of 1930, or under paragraph 1567, Tariff Act of 1922, as crude drugs; and (2) fungus similar to that the subject of *Quong Yu Wo*v. *United States*(T. D. 48003) was held dutiable at 35 percent under paragraph 775, Tariff Act of 1930, as vegetables, prepared or preserved.
No. 64268.

protests 292631-K and 292630-K (Cleveland).

#### The A. W. Fenton Co., Inc. v. United States,

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.
#### Julius Witkowski, *Respondent, v.*James W. Paramore, App*ellant.*

— Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Opinion by Daniels, J.
<PAGE>

                                                                  Exhibit 10(ii)




                        Consent of Independent Auditors


The Board of Directors
GE Life and Annuity Assurance Company
  and
Contractholders
GE Life & Annuity Separate Account 4:

We consent to the use of our reports included herein and to the reference to our
firm under the heading "Experts" in the Statement of Additional Information.

Our report on the consolidated financial statements of GE Life and Annuity
Assurance Company and subsidiary dated January 22, 2001, contains an explanatory
paragraph that states the Company changed its method of accounting for
insurance-related assessments in 1999.



                                            /s/ KPMG LLP

Richmond, VA
April 19, 2001
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 62 (Monday, April 2, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15680-15681]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-5996]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. OR07-8-000]


BP West Coast Products LLC, Complaints, v. SFPP, L.P., 
Respondent; Notice of Complaint

March 27, 2007.
    Take notice that on March 23, 2007, BP West Coast Products LLC, 
tendered for filing a complaint against SFPP, L.P. challenging the 
justness and reasonableness of SFPP's 205 index rate increases.
    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, 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. The Respondent's 
answer and all interventions, or protests must be filed on or before 
the comment date. The Respondent's answer, motions to intervene, and 
protests must be served on the Complainants.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.

[[Page 15681]]

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.
    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#60262532232f0e0c090e05331510100f121420060512034e070f16"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="692f2c3b2a26070500070c3a1c1919061b1d290f0c1b0a470e061f">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on April 12, 2007.

Philis J. Posey,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-5996 Filed 3-30-07; 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>
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v LEONARDO P. RELOZA, Staff Sergeant, U. S. Air Force, Appellant

16 USCMA 389, 37 CMR 9

No. 19,357

November 18, 1966

*Lieutenant Colonel William A. Howland, Jr.,*argued the cause for Appellant, Accused. With him on the brief were *Colonel Joseph Buchta*and *Lieutenant Colonel Andrew S. Horton.*

*Colonel Emanuel Lewis*argued the cause for Appellee, United States. With him on the brief was *Lieutenant Colonel Robert M. Haynes.*

Opinion of the Court

FERGUSON, Judge:

Convicted of larceny, in violation of Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 121, 10 USC § 921, the accused was sentenced to bad-conduct discharge and reduction. Intermediate appellate authorities affirmed, and we granted accused’s petition for review upon the issue of the propriety of the president’s instructions on the effect of character evidence.

Examination of the record discloses the accused, in his defense, introduced substantial evidence of his good character. There was no evidence offered to rebut such proof. Nevertheless, in instructing the members of the court-martial, the president, after properly detailing the consideration to be given the testimony of the character witnesses, declared:

> “. . . On the other hand, the inference of the innocence to be drawn from such evidence may be more than offset *by the prosecution evidence of the accused’s bad character*and by the other evidence in the case tending to establish the accused’s guilt.” [Emphasis supplied.]

There being no evidence of bad character proffered in the case, under the circumstances here presented, the instruction was prejudicially misleading and erroneous. Cf. United States v Johnson, 3 USCMA 709, 712, 14 CMR 127, 130; United States v Conrad, 15 USCMA 439, 448, 35 CMR 411, 420. Accordingly, we set aside the findings and sentence.

The findings of guilty and sentence are set aside. The decision of the board of review is reversed, and the record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Air Force. A rehearing may be ordered.

Judge Kilday concurs.

Quinn, Chief Judge

(dissenting):

I am unable to accept the majority *390Conclusion that the statement of an incontestable principle was somehow prejudicial to the accused.

It is a truism that the effect of evidence of good character can be “off-' set” by evidence of bad character. The instruction, therefore, stated a correct principle. True, the prosecution did not present any evidence of bad character, but the president of the court-martial did not say that it had. Under his instructions, the absence of such evidence compelled the court members to “offset” the effect of the accused’s evidence of good character only by evidence of his guilt. I would affirm the decision of the board of review.
EXHIBIT 31.1

I, H. Dean Jones II, certify that:

1)

I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Boardwalk Pipelines, LLC;

2)

Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3)

Based on my knowledge, the consolidated financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4)

The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a)

Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under its supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b)

Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report its conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

c)

Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and

5)

The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on its most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a)

All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

b)

Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.





Dated:  May 5, 2005

/s/ H. Dean Jones II





H. Dean Jones II, President
£3~ //-/5 

# QLnajDO&J-.e& iw dU 

### -WiLty -hsll^M_-&*] L/hj-se. iJo. ftJopLfK.

_[-{*!«{ '^w7j^W Lki ^ ^)^r g^f// <^ *^ /W -A> Gitobfizp -&*>- 1U <5Ur c[ 'TeXm \,r Dt^ds &/<Ay (jfiffS. «2) '?»W Shrrovi^ (bbh\ 4-lws) $ Ua*k$- (JSIa 3 BzlJlrJa iieUs <W//:'

TUfS'-JvwJr Phfr&z, ', j)_L^F f>50*( ^) /WW 5herrvo$£ 3) btCfirlos v:o\rrc<-' FILED IN 1ST COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON. TEXAS MAR 17 2015 CHRISTOPHER, A. PRINE CLEF



### l) ^S^ SrjtotieJk.(chfrksBr»ujlJjboJte*)*spr ]h;fylter 5) A>^| jW -fr.'4 W.'*4jS ., /WeluJ/U SeJj^Jc^

X jj//[ k m^-h fwihtee -fh&er .l^wt MM-xlixkL 

### frow My cL*Jrtfifa Trust- huM Jtok. All JZtifed 13 M\e ted. "7Qtffir cW- f' •bedarlob (qhrn:I-! 4micrfe 

### -7£tiessar^P^yttl,

,••I 1



### I I; D <"••• T 

### l\ t XH W r o 

### I'll 

## i! a i •'"•'.)



### ^^ <$



# lip •^ ^
No. 47471.

#### Protests 823744-G, etc., of Atlantic Coast Fisheries, Inc., et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
No. 51101.

#### Protests 43466-K, etc., of Fontana Hollywood Co. of N. Y., Inc., 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 *Soaramelli*v. *United States, supra.*The protests were sustained to this extent.