alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
. Safe, Secure, EffiCient and Environmentally Responsible Maritime Operations 

Mr. Demiis N. DeVany 

Chief, Essential Air Service Division 

Office of Aviation Analysis 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

Dear Mr. DeVany, 

1000 Harbor Way, Suite 204; Juneau, Alaska 99801 

Ph: (907) 463-2607 Fax: (800) 682-2898 

September 19, 2012 

The Marine Exchange of Alaska strongly supports the continuation of Essential Air Service 

(EAS) program support of the Icy Bay airport that provides reliable and cost effective aviation 

service to· a lodge that supports the non-profit Marine Exchange's AIS (Automatic Identification 

~i--'~·.· · ). v;es~~"racking receiver that a.ids safe, se~ure, efficient a~d enviro~me~tally so~nd 

fllir . . e _<?Pttra~ions. The vessel trackmg system m Icy Bay provides real time mformat10n on 

't'he loltiitions of\ressels to the Coast Guard, the State of Alaska and the maritime industry to aid 

l~eaicfl£arrd·rescJ4e and emergency response to maritime incidents. ~~' . . ~-1; ·• -- . 

~ . " . 

leY Bay isstr(1.t~gically located near one of the inost productive and dangerous fishing grounds in 

:Alaska, ir.aprf$}Jriately cailed Fairweather Grounds, where many vessels have sank and mariners 

lost their'lhi'es.\; The AIS receiving site in Icy Bay provides a significant enhancement to 

maritime safety in that region of Alaska and reliable air service is critical for ensuring the system 

is maintained, serviced and repaired as needed by technicians who travel from Juneau to the site. 

In light of the above I urge continued EAS at Icy Bay Alaska. 

?12 

Cap~ge, U.S. Coast Guard (Retired) 

Executive Director 

Marine Exchange of Alaska 

._ ..
NO. 07-08 -020 0-CR IN THE CO UR T OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL B MA Y16, 2008

_________

_________

_________

___ BARRY PARTAI N, Appel lan t
v. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, Appel lee

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 28 6 th DIS T RI CT COU RT OF HO CK L EY CO UNT Y; NO. 080 265 94; HON. HAROLD PHELAN, PRES IDING

_________

_________

_________

____ ON ABA TEMENT AND REMAN D

_________

_________

_________

____ Bef ore QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ. Appel lan t app eal s fr om hi s c onv ictio n for p oss ess ion of attempt ed ag g ra v ated
ass aul t c ausing se rio u s bodil y i nju ry . The cl er k’ s record has not been fil ed, b ut t he
re por ter ’s record is due June 6, 2008. An ex tens ion m oti on w as filed by the cour t repor ter on M ay 14, 2008, re pr esent ing that appel lan t has not submi tted a w ri tten desi g nati on for the record and has not p aid or made ar ra ng ements to pay for t he r ecord. Accordin gly , w e ab ate this app eal an d rem and the cause to the 286 Distri ct Court th of Hockley Coun ty (trial court) for f urthe r proce edin gs. Upon rema nd, the trial court sha ll2

immedi atel y

ca use noti ce of a hear ing to be given a nd, t her eafter, co nducta he ar ing to d e te rm in e th e fo llo wing: 1. w hether

appel lan t des ires to prosec ute t he appe al; 2. w hether

appel lan t i s i ndi g ent; and, 3. w het he r th e ap pe l l an t i s en ti tl ed to a fr ee ap pe l l at e r ec ord du e to his ind ig ency . The tr ial co urt s hal l caus e the hear ing to be transc ri bed. So too s hal l it1) ex ecut e findi ng s o f f actand conc lus ion s o f law address ing the forego in g i ss ues, 2) ca use to be dev elo ped a suppl emental cl er k’ s record c ontai nin g i ts findi ng s o f f actand conc lus ion s o f law and all orders i t may

i ss ue as a re sul t of i ts hear ing in thi s matter , and 3) ca use to be dev elo ped a re por

ter ’s r ecord tr ansc ri bin g the ev ide nce and arg uments pr esent ed atthe aforementi oned he arin g , i f any

. Addi ti onal ly , t he di str ic t c our t s hal l then file the supp lem ent al records an d repo rter’s records transcribing the hea ring w ith the clerk of this
cour t on o r b e f o re June 16, 2008. Sh oul d furt her ti me be ne eded by

the tr ial co urt t o per form thes e tas ks , t hen s ame mustbe req uest ed befor e J une 16, 2008. It is so order ed. Per C ur iam Do not p ubl is h.
Exhibit 12 (a)

                             BNP U.S. FUNDING L.L.C.
                             -----------------------

                Computation of ratio of earnings to fixed charges
                          (in thousands, except ratios)


                                                         Twelve-month
                                                         period ended
                                                       December 31, 2000
                                                       -----------------

Net income....................................           $     66,341
                                                               ------
Fixed Charges
      Audit Fees..............................                     79
      Trustee Fees............................                    120
      Administrative Fees.....................                    771
                                                                  ---
Total Fixed Charges...........................                    970
                                                                -----
Earnings before fixed charges.................           $     67,311
                                                               ======
Fixed charges, as above.......................                    970
                                                                 ----
Ratio of earnings to fixed charges............                  69.39
                                                                =====
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-541

In Re: PHILLIP M. PROPST,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

Submitted: April 29, 1998 Decided: May 15, 1998

Before MURNAGHAN, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Phillip M. Propst, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant brought this mandamus petition seeking an order

directing the Catawba County Superior Court to enter a discovery

order. We lack jurisdiction to order the state court to act. See

Davis v. Lansing, 851 F.2d 72, 74 (2d Cir. 1988). Accordingly,

although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny

mandamus relief. We dispense with oral argument because the facts

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

before the court and argument would not significantly aid in the

decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Efren ENCARNACION-CASTILLO, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 04-50401.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Sept. 12, 2005.*

Decided Sept. 19, 2005.

Mark Childs, AUSA, USLA—Office of the U.S. Attorney Criminal Division, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Pedro V. Castillo, Esq., James H. Locklin, Esq., FPDCA—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 **

Efren Encarnacion-Castillo appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea to possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1).

Encarnacion-Castillo contends that the district court erred in applying the Sentencing Guidelines as mandatory when imposing his sentence. Because Encarnacion-Castillo was sentenced under the then-mandatory Sentencing Guidelines, and we cannot reliably determine from the record whether the sentence imposed would have been materially different had *878the district court known that the Guidelines were advisory, we remand to the district court to answer that question, and to proceed pursuant to *United States v. Ameline,*409 F.3d 1073, 1084 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc). *See United States v. Moreno-Hernandez,*419 F.3d 906, 915 (9th Cir.2005) (extending Ameline’s limited remand procedure to cases involving 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.
No. 49878.

#### Petition 6385-R of W. F. Mackay (Pembina).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

From the record it was found that the petitioner made entry in the instant case at the invoice value in good faith and that in making the entry he acted -without intention to misrepresent the facts or defraud the revenue of the United States or to deceive the appraiser as to the value of the goods. The petition was therefore granted.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1


                         Independent Auditors' Consent


The Board of Directors
Liberty Group Publishing, Inc.:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement (No.
333-89704) on Form S-2 of Liberty Group Publishing, Inc., as amended, of our
report dated March 20, 2003, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of
Liberty Group Publishing, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2001 and
2002, and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders'
deficit, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended
December 31, 2002, which report appears in the December 31, 2002, annual report
on Form 10-K of Liberty Group Publishing, Inc.

Our report refers to the Company's adoption of the provisions of Statement of
Financial Accounting Standards No. 142, "Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets",
on January 1, 2002.


                                        /s/ KPMG LLP

Chicago, Illinois
March 31, 2003
#### Meredith E. EICHER v. LOUISIANA STATE POLICE, RIVERBOAT GAMING ENFORCEMENT DIVISION.

No. 98-C-0780.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 8, 1998.

In re Eicher, Meredith E.;—Plaintiff(s); applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; Parish of East Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court, Div. “H”, No. 424,478; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. CA97 0121.

Denied.

MARCUS, J., not on panel.
#### Perry Allen HOOKER v. SUPER PRODUCTS CORPORATION, et al.

No. 98-CC-2807.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 8, 1999.

In re Super Products Corp. et al;— Defendant(s); applying for supervisory and/or remedial writs; Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court, Div. “E”, No. 451,633; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 98-CW-0836.

Denied.

TRAYLOR, J., not on panel.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 4.11

RESTRICTIVE LEGENDS ON REVERSE SIDE HEREOF

             Incorporated under the laws of the State of Minnesota

SPECIMEN                                                              SPECIMEN

                          GLOBAL MAINTECH CORPORATION

This Certifies that                    SPECIMEN                 is the owner and

                  ______________________________________________

registered holder of _________________________________________________ Shares of
                  ______________________________________________
  fully paid and nonassessable shares of Series D Convertible Preferred Stock,
no par value, of
                         Global MAINTECH Corporation

transferable only on the books of the corporation by the holder hereof in person
or by duly authorized attorney upon surrender of this certificate properly
endorsed.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said corporation has caused this certificate to be
signed by its duly authorized officers and be sealed with the seal of the
corporation.


NO                   this                          day of             '        .
                          ______________________          ____________  _______

                     ____________________________    __________________________
                               Secretary                      President

[CORPORATE
  SEAL]
<PAGE>

Neither these securities nor the securities into which these securities may be
convertible have been registered with the securities and exchange commission or
the securities commission of any state in reliance upon an exemption from
registration under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities
Act"), and, accordingly, may not be offered or sold except pursuant to an
effective registration statement under the securities act or pursuant to an
available exemption from, or in a transaction not subject to, the registration
requirements of the securities act and in accordance with applicable state
securities laws.

A full statement of the powers, designations, preferences and relative,
participating, optional or other special rights of each class of stock or series
thereof of the corporation and the qualifications, limitations or restrictions
of such preferences and/or rights will be furnished by said corporation to any
stockholder under request and without charge.
Exhibit 31.2


Certification of Principal Financial Officer required by Rule 13a - 14(a)
or 15d-14(a) of the Exchange Act

I, Pam Strunk, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of AES Red Oak, 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 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 our 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) [Reserved]

c) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant'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

d) 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 our
most recent evaluation of internal controls over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of 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.

Date:  August 14, 2003

                                        /s/ Pam Strunk
                                        ---------------------------------
                                        Pam Strunk
                                        Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit	5	– Safety Margin	Testing

A series of emissions analyses were undertaken to assist GA EPD in developing the MVEB safety margins. 

These tests include a worst case scenario of the RTP horizon year, 2040, which produces 10% more VMT 

than projected, 1 million more inhabitants (reflected in source type population), and an age distribution 

2 years older than current data suggests for the year 2040. These analyses were developed to help GA 

EPD establish a realistic motor vehicle emissions budget safety margin for use in transportation 

conformity. 2040 and the 2040 worst case emissions are reflected in Table 1 and 2, below.

Table 1 – 2040 Scenario Testing Daily Ozone Precursor Emissions

Pollutant 2040 Tons/Day 

(% above 2024)

2040 Worst Case Tons/Year 

(% above 2024)

NOx 103.42 (4%) 126.24 (27%)

VOC 70.97 (14%) 91.70 (47%)

Table 2 – 2040 Scenario testing Annual PM2.5 Precursor Emissions

Pollutant 2040 Tons/Year 

(% above 2024)

2040 Worst Case Tons/Year

(% above 2024)

NOx 36,150.78 (3%) 44,429.34 (26%)

PM2.5 1,938.27 (18%) 2,281.15 (39%)
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

November 25, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

136990 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, 

Justices 

v SC: 136990 

 COA: 283228 

Wayne CC: 90-011298

LESTER WILLIAMS,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 9, 2008 order of 

the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has failed to 

meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). 

p1117 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

November 25, 2008 

 Clerk
CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEFFINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with the reporton Form 10-Q of ComCam International, Inc. for the quarterly period ended September30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof, I, Don Gilbreath, do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, asadopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the bestof my knowledge and belief:

 

(1)  This report fully complies withthe requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934; and

(2)  The information contained in thisreport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition ofthe registrant at the end of the period covered by this report and results ofoperations of the registrant for the period covered by this report.

 

Date: November 11, 2010

 

 

/s/ Don Gilbreath

Don Gilbreath, Chief Executive Officer and ChiefFinancial Officer

 

This certificationaccompanies this report pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 andshall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, bedeemed filed by the registrant for the purposes of §18 of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended. This certification shall not be incorporatedby reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, orthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or afterthe date of this report), irrespective of any general incorporation languagecontained in such filing.

 

 

 

 

 

----
**Slip Op 01-70 UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE**  **BEFORE: CHIEF JUDGE GREGORY W. CARMAN**

**__________________________________________ BETHLEHEM STEEL CORPORATION,**  **et al. ,**  **: :**  **Plaintiffs, :**  **: v.**  **: Court No: 00-03-00116**  **: UNITED STATES,**  **: :**  **Defendant, :**  **: &**  **: :**  **POHANG IRON & STEEL CO., :**  **: Defendant-Intervenor.**  **: __________________________________________:**  **O RDER**  Upon consideration of the United States’ motion for Clarificati on and to Amend the Judgment, and upon the consent of Bethlehem Steel corporation and U.S. Steel Group, a unit of USX Corporation, and upon receiving no response from Pohang Iron & Steel Co., it is hereby **ORDERED** that the motion is granted, and it is further **ORDERED** that the judgment entered by the Court on April 4, 2001 is amended by striking from page 24 of Slip-Op. 01-38 the word “inherent” from before the word“characteristics” and by changing the phrase “51% of the financial benefits” on page 24 of SlipOp. 01-38 to “51% of the discounts.”

**SO ORDERED**

**___________________________** Gregory W. Carman, Chief Judge Dated: June 7, 2001 New York, New York
No. 47632.

#### Protest 958250-G of Western Novelty Co. (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Walker, J.

The examiner who was called by the plaintiff identified two articles which were marked as exhibits. They were found to consist of imitation leis such as are commonly seen at carnivals and seashore resorts. Each consists of a strand of colored chip roping about 30 inches long with the ends tied securely together so that they may be hung around the neck. Prom the Tecord it was clear that the only effort expended in producing the articles is •cutting chip roping to length and tying the ends. The plaintiff claims this is not •a manufacturing process and that the merchandise has not reached the stage of becoming a manufacture of chip roping, citing *Nootka*v. *United States*(22 C. C. P. A. 464, T. D. 47464). Defendant claims that the articles have acquired a new name, character, and use different from which the material, chip roping, originally had, and cited *Ishimitsu v. United States*(11 Ct. Cust. Appls. 186, T. D. 38963). The court was of the opinion that simple as the manufacturing effort applied to the articles may have been, it nevertheless changed the material into a new article, having new characteristics, including a new name and a new use, and cited *United States*v. *General Dyestuff Corp.*(29 C. C. P. A. 53, C. A. D. 170). In accordance therewith the protest was overruled.