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

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

WASHINGTON, DC

FLIGHTLINE GROUND, INC., d/b/a )

FLIGHTLINE FIRST, )

)

Complainant, )

v. ) DOCKET NO. 16-11-01

)

LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF )

TRANSPORTATION AND )

DEVELOPMENT, AS SUCCESSOR TO )

THE LOUISIANA DIVISION OF )

ADMINISTRATION and THE BOARD )

OF COMMISSIONERS FOR THE )

MANAGEMENT OF THE LAKEFRONT )

AIRPORT; NON-FLOOD PROTECTION )

ASSET MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY, )

AS SUCCESSOR TO THE BOARD OF )

COMMISSIONERS OF THE ORLEANS )

PARISH LEVEE DISTRICT and )

ORLEANS PARISH LEVEE DISTRICT, )

DIVISION OF NON-FLOOD ASSETS, )

)

Respondents. )

COMPLAINTANT’S MOTION TO AMEND STYLE OF THE CASE

COMES NOW, Flightline Ground, Inc., Complainant in the above-captioned matter, 

request to amend the style of the case to delete the phrase “d/b/a Flightline First” from the 

caption of the case based upon the following:

1.

Flightline, Inc. is a corporation and is the lessee of premises on the New Orleans Lake 

Front Airport (“KNEW”). 

2.

Flightline First, LLC is a limited liability company which is separate entity from 

Flightline Ground, Inc. 
2

3.

Placing the phrase: “d/b/a Flightline First” in the caption of the case referenced to the 

Complainant was an error of counsel of Complainant. 

WHEREFORE, Complainant prays as follows:

1. That the caption of the case be amended to reflect that the name of the Complainant 

in this action it is “Flightline Ground, Inc.”; and

2. That the reference to “d/b/a/ Flightline First” in the caption of the case following the 

name of the Complainant be deleted;

3. That the Federal Aviation Administration promulgate any and all orders as are just in 

the premises to correct the error in the caption of the case.

Respectfully submitted, this 17th day of March, 2011.

s / Alan Armstrong

____________________________________

Alan Armstrong

Georgia Bar No. 022075

Counsel for Complainant

Alan Armstrong Attorney at Law

2900 Chamblee Tucker Road

Building 5, Suite 350

Atlanta, Georgia 30341

P: 770.451.0313

F: 770.451.0317

alan@alanarmstronglaw.com
3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that the foregoing Complaintant’s Motion to Amend Style of the Case has been 

served upon Brandon Brown, Esq., Counsel for the Louisiana Department of Transportation and 

Development via electronic mail at brandon.brown@la.gov and also that a copy of same has been served 

upon Charles Curtis, Esq. , by electronic mail at ccurtis@metzgerlawfirm.com, counsel for the Non-Flood 

Protection Asset Management Authority (the “authority”) and also Gerard Metzger, Esq., counsel for the 

authority be electronic mail at gerry@metzgerlawfirm.com.

This the 17th day of March, 2011.

s / Alan Armstrong

________________________________

Alan Armstrong

Alan Armstrong Attorney at Law

2900 Chamblee Tucker Road

Building 5, Suite 350

Atlanta, Georgia 30341

P: 770.451.0313

F: 770.451.0317

alan@alanarmstronglaw.com
No. 65754.

#### Castelazo & Associates *v.*United States,

protest 58/2446 (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with oral stipulation of counsel that the invoice gross weights, which are with the packing list, are the correct dutiable weights, the collector was directed to reliquidate the entry accordingly.
EXHIBIT 32.1



                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 Trinity Learning Corporation (the "Company")
Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2004 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Douglas D. Cole, 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:

     1.   The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

     2.   The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
          of the Company.


Date: June 14, 2004

                                                 /S/ DOUGLAS D. COLE
                                                 -------------------
                                                 Douglas D. Cole
                                                 Chief Executive Officer


          A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906
          has been provided to Trinity Learning Corporation and will be retained
          by it and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
          staff upon request.
Before the Third Division,

June 5, 1961

No. 65749.

#### M. W. Hardy & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 60/26636 (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with oral stipulation of counsel that the drums are American goods returned and that all of the regulations have been complied with, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
No. 56679.

protest 178275-K (New York).

#### Alltransport, Incorporated *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protest.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains financial information extracted from the second quarter
1998 10-Q and is qualified in its entirety by references to such 10-Q.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-01-1998
<CASH>                                           19466
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    73447
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      57731
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                167500
<PP&E>                                          232155
<DEPRECIATION>                                  100959
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  442092
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            85508
<BONDS>                                         100650
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                          1355
<OTHER-SE>                                      215517
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    442092
<SALES>                                         317014
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                317014
<CGS>                                           234006
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   234006
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                3639
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  36235
<INCOME-TAX>                                     15472
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              20763
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     20763
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.55
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.49
        

</TABLE>
1 COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

Border Demolition & Environmental, Inc.

,

Appellant,

v.

Ernesto Pineda

. ,

Appellee. §

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 16

- 0 0 0 94

- CV

Appeal from the

171 st District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 2014DCV1097 )

O RDER FOR M EDIATION R EFERRAL

The Court has determined that this case is appropriate for referral to mediation pursuant to

T EX .C IV .P RAC .&R EM .C ODE A NN

. § 154.021, et seq. , and ORDERS this case referred to mediation.

Any objection to this order must be filed with this Court and served u pon all parties within ten (10)

days of the date of this order. An objection untimely filed may be considered waived.

The Court further ORDERS that the parties shall, within twenty (20) days of this order, or

within ten (10) days of an adverse ruling on an objection, confer and attempt to agree upon a mediator

qualified under T EX .C IV .P RAC .&R EM .C ODE A NN

. § 154.052. The parties shall notify the Co urt of

the name, address, telephone and fax number of the mediator. If the parties are unable to agree upon

a qualified mediator, the parties are directed to immediately notify the Court in writing , and upon

receipt, the Court will enter an order reestabl ish ing the appellate timetable.2

The Court further ORDERS that the mediation be held within sixty (60) days of this order

and that the appellate timetable be suspended during such time. All parties or their representative

with full settlement authority sh all attend the mediation process, with their counsel of record. The

mediator and parties shall file a report of the completion of mediation within forty

- eight (48) hours

of the conclusion of mediation advising the court of:

 full, partial, or no resolution of the case;

 whether further negotiations are planned; and

 compensation paid to the mediator and by whom.

In the event no further negotiations are planned and there is no resolution, or a partial

resolution of the case occurs, the parties will file a motion with this Court requesting that the Court

issue an order reestablishing the appellate timetable. This motion will accompany the

above

- mentioned forty

- eight (48) hours report.

The Court further ORDERS , in the event of full resolution of the issues in this case, that

the parties file a joint dispositive motion within ten (10) days of th e conclusion of mediation.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 1 5 th day of June , 20 16

.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure, C.J., R odriguez , and Hughes , JJ.
11112/2015 Abel Acosta, Clerk 

### FIDEL RAMIREZ
Case No. 9,257.

#### MASON v. WILSON.

[Cited in Smith v. Bank of Columbia, Case No. 13,011. Nowhere reported; opinion not now accessible.]
Exhibit 32.2


                                  Certification
                  Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
       Act of 2002 (Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of
                         Title 18, United States Code)

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350), the
undersigned officer of SonomaWest Holdings, Inc., a California corporation (the
"Company"), does hereby certify that to his knowledge:

The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2004 (the
"Form 10-Q") of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section
13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that
the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

                                        Dated: November 12, 2004

                                        /s/ Thomas R. Eakin
                                        --------------------------------
                                        Thomas R. Eakin
                                        Chief Financial Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to SonomaWest Holdings, Inc. and will be retained by SonomaWest
Holdings, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.
Exhibit 12.2 I, Alexander A. Lutsky, certify that: 1.I
have  reviewed  this  annual  report on Form 20-F of Open  Joint  Stock  Company
Long-Distance and International Telecommunications Rostelecom; 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 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 company as of, and for,
the periods presented in this report; 4.The   company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  company  and  have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures,  or caused such disclosure
controls and  procedures to be designed  under our  supervision,  to ensure that
material  information  relating  to  the  company,  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  companys  disclosure  controls and
procedures and presented in this report our 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  companys  internal control
over financial  reporting that occurred  during the period covered by the annual
report that has  materially  affected,  or is  reasonably  likely to  materially
affect,  the  companys  internal  control over  financial  reporting. 5.The companys  other certifying officer and I have disclosed,  based on our
most recent  evaluation of internal  control over  financial  reporting,  to the
companys  auditors and the audit committee of the company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  companys  ability  to  record,  process,
summarize and report financial information; and (b)  Any  fraud,  whether  or  not  material,  that  involves  Rostelecoms
management or other employees who have a significant role in the  companys
internal control over financial reporting.   Date:
        June 29, 2005
        /signed/ Alexander A. Lutsky _______________________ Alexander A. Lutsky Chief Accountant (CFO) of OJSC Long-Distance and International Telecommunications Rostelecom
Exhibit 10.10

----

|   | Thomas W.    Bishop |                           |
|--------|---------------------|--------------------------------|
|   |                |                           |   |
|   | By:                 | /s/ Thomas      W. Bishop |   |
|   |                | Thomas      W. Bishop     |   |
|   |                |                           |   |
|   |                |                           |   |

|   | URS      Corporation,a Nevada corporation |                                      |
|--------|-------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------|
|   |                                      |                                      |   |
|   | By:                                       | /s/ H.      Thomas Hicks             |   |
|   |                                      | Name:H.      Thomas Hicks            |   |
|   |                                      | Title:      Chief Financial Officer  |   |
|   |                                      |                                      |   |

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                         425,933
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  163,408
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     11,367
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               656,639
<PP&E>                                      14,921,424
<DEPRECIATION>                               4,201,064
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              11,496,951
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,419,356
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       791,782
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,032,290
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                11,496,951
<SALES>                                         93,487
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               976,742
<CGS>                                           57,970
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,075,092
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             181,071
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (98,350)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (96,638)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (.06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.06)


</TABLE>
#### A. W. Fenton Co. *v.*United States

No. 7468.

Invoice dated London, England, March 12, 1946.

Certified March 14, 1946.

Entered at New York, N. Y., April 2, 1946.

Entry No. 749115.

(Decided December 5, 1947)

*Barnes, Richardson & Colburn (Hadley 8. King*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

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

Cole, Judge

(Abstract): This appeal for reappraisement of various items of merchandise concerns 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 (19 U. S. C. § 1402 (c)). *United States*v. *Wm. S. Pitcairn Corp.,*33 C. C. P. A. 183, C. A. D. 334.

The cited case has been incorporated herein by consent of the parties who further agree on a set of facts, embodied in a written stipulation submitting the present ease, showing export value, section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for appraisement of the instant merchandise, and that such statutory value is the appraised value of the articles in question, less additions made by the importer on entry because of advances in similar cases.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Juan Fernando MEJIA-CIENEGA, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 04-50581.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Sept. 12, 2005.*

Decided Sept. 15, 2005.

Peter A. Hernandez, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Criminal Division, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

*826Michael Tanaka, Esq., Federal Public Defender’s Office, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: REINHARDT, RYMER, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Juan Fernando Mejia-Cienega appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry following deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a), and we remand.

Mejia-Cienega contends that he is entitled to resentencing under *United States v. Booker,*— U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (U.S.2005). Mejia-Cienega suffered no Sixth Amendment violation in the imposition of his sentence, which was enhanced solely on the basis of a prior aggravated felony that he admitted to at the change-of-plea hearing. *See United States v. Moreno-Hernandez,*No. 03-30387, 2005 WL 1964483, at *7 n. 8 (9th Cir. Aug.17, 2005) (holding that a sentence enhancement based on the fact of a prior conviction for assault raised no Sixth Amendment problems). However, because Mejia-Cienega was sentenced under the mandatory guidelines we remand the case for further proceedings consistent with *United States v. Ameline,*409 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc). *See Moreno-Hernandez,*419 F.3d 906, 915 (extending *Ameline’s*limited remand procedure to non-constitutional *Booker*error).

REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
| Ø | Contract      number: (2010) Shenyinsun Zongzi004; |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------|

| Ø | Maximum      amount of credit facilities to be provided: RMB 80  million; |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Ø | Term:      from May 12th,      2010 to May 12th,      2011. |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------|

| Ø | Remedies      in the event of breach of contract include adjustment of the credit      amount, suspension of credit, imposition of punitive interest and overdue      interest, an increase of guarantee deposit and the call back of loan      principal and interest beforematurity. |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Ø | Procedure      on using the comprehensive creditfacility |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------------|

| Ø | Declaration      and promise of the Debtor |
|--------|--------------------------------------------|

| Ø | Rights      and Obligations of the Debtor |
|--------|-------------------------------------------|

| Ø | Rights      and Obligations of the Creditor |
|--------|---------------------------------------------|

| Ø | Guaranty |
|--------|----------|

| Ø | Effectiveness,      Modification and termination ofContract |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------|

| Ø | Disputation      settlement |
|--------|-----------------------------|

| Ø | Validity |
|--------|----------|

----