alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1401 H Street, NW, Suite 1075, Washington, DC 20005 (202) 326-5154 Fax (202) 898-4810

February 16, 2015

Mr. Paul Gretch

Director

Office of International Aviation

United States Department of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Ave., S.E.

Washington, D.C. 20590

Re: US Airways, Inc. – Aegean Airlines S.A. (“Aegean”) Codesharing 

(Docket DOT-OST-2011-0120)

Dear Mr. Gretch:

On July 12, 2011, the Department of Transportation (“Department”) issued a Statement 

of Authorization to US Airways, Inc. (“US Airways”) to display Aegean’s “A3” designator code 

on flights operated by US Airways (i) between any point or points in the European Union (either 

nonstop or via third country intermediate points); (ii) between any point or points in the United 

States and any point or points in the European Common Aviation Area when an open-skies 

agreement is being applied; (iii) between U.S. points; and (iv) beyond the United States to any 

point or points in third countries. (See Department Action, July 12, 2011, Docket DOT-OST2011-0120 “Action”).)

In accordance with the Conditions set forth in the Action, US Airways hereby advises the 

Department that the US Airways-Aegean codeshare arrangement has been terminated effective 

immediately. Accordingly, US Airways and Aegean will no longer place their respective 

designator codes on each other’s flights. 

Respectfully submitted,

Howard Kass

Vice President – Regulatory Affairs

Robert A. Wirick

Managing Director, Regulatory & International 

Affairs

Abigail Donovan

Director, Congressional and Federal Affairs

cc: Service List

Andrew Harakas, Counsel for Aegean
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that, on February 16, 2015, I caused to be served a copy of the foregoing Letter 

by email upon those addressees listed below:

urskr@state.gov (Department of State)

cristinasa@state.gov (Department of State)

brian.hedberg@dot.gov (Department of Transportation)

todd.homan@dot.gov (Department of Transportation)

peter.irvine@dot.gov (Department of Transportation)

laura.remo@dot.gov (Department of Transportation)

brett.kruger@dot.gov (Department of Transportation)

john.allen@faa.gov (Federal Aviation Administration)

dan.weiss@united.com (United)

steve.morrissey@united.com (United))

gmurphy@crowell.com (Counsel for United)

sascha.vanderbellen@delta.com (Delta)

chris.walker@delta.com (Delta)

_________________________

Abigail Donovan
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2077 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow income averaging 

for private forest landowners. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOVEMBER 18, 2005 

Mr. SESSIONS introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow 

income averaging for private forest landowners. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Tax Relief for Private 

5 Forest Landowners Act of 2005’’. 

6 SEC. 2. INCOME AVERAGING FOR PRIVATE FOREST LAND7 OWNERS. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1301 of the Internal Rev9 enue Code of 1986 is amended by redesignating subsection 
2 

•S 2077 IS

1 (c) as subsection (d) and by inserting after subsection (b) 

2 the following new subsection: 

3 ‘‘(c) TREATMENT OF SALE OR EXCHANGE OF TIM4 BER.—For purposes of this section— 

5 ‘‘(1) an individual who sells or exchanges tim6 ber shall be treated as engaged in a farming busi7 ness, and 

8 ‘‘(2) income which is attributable to the sale or 

9 exchange of timber shall be treated as income attrib10 utable to a farming business.’’. 

11 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

12 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

13 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ
# San Joaquin’s Hackette named DLA Senior NCO of the Quarter 

/ Published Nov. 28, 2018
TRACY, Calif., 
DLA Distribution San Joaquin, California, Army Sgt. 1st Class Kwesi Hackette has been selected as DLA Senior Non-Commissioned Officer of the Quarter for third quarter, fiscal year 2018.

Hackette currently serves as San Joaquin’s Movement senior noncommissioned officer in charge and as a member of DLA’s Real Property Task Force (RPTF).  

“As a forward-thinking and problem-solving logistician, Sgt. Hackette's performance has directly contributed to sustained improvements in our transportation operations,” said DLA Distribution San Joaquin, California, commander Marine Col. Andre Harrell.  

In his role as the Movement SNCOIC, Hackette is responsible for more than 200 tons of equipment and supplies transported on more than 80 commercial seavans and trucks per day to support Department of Defense operations worldwide.  

As a member of the RPTF, he supervises the accurate inventory of approximately 18,000 real property assets located at 550 sites for DLA.  

When the RPTF was instituted in the second quarter of 2018 as DLA Director Army Lt. Gen. Darrell Williams' number one priority, Hackette took the initiative and volunteered to join the team to help account for more than $800 million in assets.  After receiving five days of training, Hackette was dispatched with a team of three other civilians to account for $55 million in assets at two DLA sites. His direct leadership and management skills helped his team find 100 percent of the assets in only two days.

During this period, Hackette also assisted in the management of 30 Navy reservists assigned to the installation. Taking over the program as “First Sergeant,” and site lead, he immediately established expectations and set standards, coordinating with division chiefs to ensure the sailors maintained 100 percent accountability and proficiency in the pick, pack, stow and re-warehousing process. 

As a result of this training, the sailors are now able to supplement the DLA workforce during periods of high demands and surges. Additionally, they are ready to deploy to supplement San Joaquin's Deployable Expeditionary Team to support natural disasters and worldwide conflicts, combined and joint exercises, or contingencies.

“Sgt. Hackette is always willing to assist where there is a need. Not only has DLA Distribution San Joaquin benefited greatly from his dedication, resiliency, and engaged leadership, but he is leading by example and providing senior-level leadership to government employees involved in the RPTF mission,” said Harrell.
## In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 19

- 00286

- CR

E X PARTE J OSHUA C OOK §

§

§

§

§ On Appeal from the 30th District

Court

of Wichita County (189,591

- C)

November 27, 2019

Opinion by Justice Bassel

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that the

appeal should be dismissed. It is ordered that the appeal is dismissed as moot

.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL S

By /s/ Dabn ey Bassel

Justice Dabney Bassel
### Development of ground-water supplies at Mississippi test facility, Hancock County, Mississippi

By: Roy Newcome

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/wsp1839H

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plate:  **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
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 Quarterly Report of KIT digital, Inc. (the “Company”) on
Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Kaleil Isaza Tuzman,
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. section 1350 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1)
            The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
and





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


The
foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350 and is not being filed for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be
incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or
after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such
filing.





Date:
      May 20, 2009
                  /s/
      Kaleil Isaza TuzmanKaleil
      Isaza Tuzman
                    Chairman
      and Chief Executive
Officer
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED AU GUST 15, 2013

NO. 03

- 13

- 00231

- CV

J. T., Appellant

v.

Department of Family and Protective Services, Appellee

APPEAL FROM 433RD DISTRICT COURT OF COMAL COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUST ICE JONES, JUSTICES PEMBERTON AND FIELD

AFFIRMED

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE PEMBERTON

THIS CAUSE came on to be heard on the record of the court below, and the same being

considered, because it is the opinion of this Court that there was no error in the dist rict court’s

order : IT IS THEREFORE considered, adjudged and ordered that the order of the district court

is in all things affirmed. It FURTHER appearing that the appellant is indigent and unable to pay

costs, that no adjudication as to costs is made; an d that this decision be certified below for

observance

.
EXHIBIT
31.2




CERTIFICATIONS




I, Cheung
Wai Hung, Eddie, certify that:




1. I have
reviewed this Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2009, of Innocom
Technology Holdings, Inc.:




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 small business issuer as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;




4. The
small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) 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 small business issuer 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 small business issuer, 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 small business issuer'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 small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business
issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's fourth fiscal
quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting; and




5. The
small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based
on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to
the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of the small
business issuer'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 small business issuer'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 small business issuer's internal control over
financial reporting.





Date:
      November 2, 2009
                  
                  /s/Cheung
      Wai Hung, Eddie, Chief Financial
Officer
No. 00-7237.

#### Brashars *v.*Kentucky.

Sup. Ct. Ky. Certio-rari denied.
#### Joseph RAGIN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 76-1527.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

July 26, 1977.

Pollack, Tunkey, Robbins & Rosenfield, Miami, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Arthur Joel Berger, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before HENDRY, C. J., and PEARSON and HUBBART, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction and sentence for sale and possession of cocaine contending that he was denied a fair trial by certain comments made by the prosecutor in final argument to the jury. The defendant did not object to those comments nor did he make a motion for mistrial based on such comments. The law is clear that an appellate court “will review challenged arguments of prosecutors only when an objection is timely made.” *State v. Jones,*204 So.2d 515 (Fla.1967). See also *Thomas v. State,*326 So.2d 413 (Fla.1975). The judgments of convictions and sentences are, accordingly, affirmed.
**EXHIBIT 23**
Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Form S-8 Nos.333-87248, 333-80537 and 333-88183) pertaining to Dave &Buster’s Inc. 1995 Stock Option Plan, Stock Option plan forOutside Directors and Employee 401(k) Savings Plan and Form S-3 No. 333-108468 pertaining to the registration of$30,000,000 of convertible subordinated notes and warrants to purchase shares of common stock ofDave and Buster’s Inc. of our reports dated April 13, 2005, with respect to the consolidatedfinancial statements of Dave and Buster’s, Inc., Dave and Buster’s, Inc.’s management’s assessmentof the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, and the effectiveness ofinternal control over financial reporting of Dave and Buster’s, Inc. included in this Annual Report(Form 10-K) for the year ended January 30, 2005.
/s/ Ernst & Young LLP
Dallas, Texas
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

FELIX MARIA MONEGRO-NUNEZ, :

:

Petitioner, : 06-CV-1002

:

v. :

:

ALBERTO GONZALES, US Atty. Gen., :

USCIS District Director, DHS Local :

Removal Officers, and all Officers :

and Employees having physical custody : A# 70-154-288

of Petitioner, :

:

Respondents. :

O R D E R

June 19, 2006

On May 17, 2006, petitioner Felix Maria Monegro-Nunez filed a petition for a

writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 with the assistance of counsel. 

At the time Monegro-Nunez was an alien subject to a final order of removal and in

the custody of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). His petition recites

that he is challenging the legality of his detention.

On May 17, 2006, we dismissed petitioner’s request for a stay of removal

for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, denied his request for immediate restraint of

transfer to a Louisiana detention facility, and denied his request for a remand of the

case to the district director. In that order we directed the government to answer

Case 4:06-cv-01002-JFM Document 6 Filed 06/19/06 Page 1 of 2
Monegro-Nunez’s petition, but stated that the answer need not address any of his

claims challenging his final order of removal because we lack jurisdiction to hear

those claims.

On June 6, 2006, in accordance with our May 17, 2006 order the government

filed its response to the petition. That response indicates that Monegro-Nunez was

removed from the United States on May 17, 2006. Therefore, the petition is now

moot and will be dismissed. Blanciak v. Alleghaney Ludlum Corp., 77 F.3d 690,

698-99 (3d Cir. 1996).

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. Monegro-Nunez’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus is dismissed. 

(Rec. Doc. No. 1)

2. The clerk is directed to close the case file.

 s/ James F. McClure, Jr. 

James F. McClure, Jr.

United States District Judge

Case 4:06-cv-01002-JFM Document 6 Filed 06/19/06 Page 2 of 2
From: "Palazzolo, Michael A." <Michael.Palazzolo@alcoa.com> 

To: Rochelle Boyd/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA 

Cc: <psohi@aluminum.org>, "Charles D. Johnson" <cjohnson@aluminum.org> 

Date: 12/08/2011 09:26 AM 

Subject: RE: Performance Testing 

____________________________________

Rochelle, 

 

Thank you for the reminder. 

 

Under the rule, any exceedance of a parametric limit, like chlorine flux injection rate is considered a 

deviation. If a facility needs to increase their flux injection limit, a performance test must be conducted 

with the new (higher) flux rate but when they conduct the test they are exceeding their current flux limit. 

 

This issue could be resolved if there were an exemption from established parametric limits only when 1) 

the owner or operator is conducting a performance test to establish a new or revised parametric limit and 

2) the site-specific test plan documents the intent to establish the new or revised parametric limit. (The 

exemption would only apply for the operating period or process cycles when emissions sampling is being 

performed.) 

 

Please let me know if you have further questions. 

 

Thanks, 

 

Mike 

Michael Palazzolo 

Alcoa, Inc. 

201 Isabella Street 

Pittsburgh, PA 15212-5858 

Ph: 412-553-4832 

________________________ 

From: Boyd.Rochelle@epamail.epa.gov [mailto:Boyd.Rochelle@epamail.epa.gov] 

Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2011 2:30 PM

To: Palazzolo, Michael A.

Cc: psohi@aluminum.org; Charles D. Johnson

Subject: Performance Testing 

 

Hi, Mike, one thing that was not on my checklist was the issue that you were having when you go to set 

new parametric settings for new or altered waste streams. You mentioned that if you used 40 lbs of flux 

instead of 20 lbs in you OM&M plan you, you had to file that as a deviation. i am assuming that this is 

not a test for compliance but for the purpose of of setting new parameters. Can you please explain the 

type of waiver exemption you would like? Thanks 

Rochelle Boyd, Environmental Engineer

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

Sector Policies and Programs Division

109 T.W. Alexander Drive, RTP, NC 27711

Mail Drop D243-02

Ph: (919) 541-1390 Fax: (919) 541-3207

Email: boyd.rochelle@epa.gov
# EUR-Lex - 51995IP0669 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 51995IP0669

**Resolution on the missing persons of the Cyprus tragedy **

*
Official Journal C 109 , 01/05/1995 P. 0166 *

B4-0669, 0679 and 0688/95

Resolution on the missing persons of the Cyprus tragedy

The European Parliament,

- having regard to its previous resolutions relating to the Cyprus problem and the protection of human rights,

A. whereas the fate of 1619 missing persons of the Cyprus tragedy is still unknown 21 years on,

B. whereas some of them are citizens of the European Union (Greek, British),

C. whereas the US Congress has approved a resolution to set up a committee to investigate the fate of the US citizens among the missing persons, approving a budget of USD 1.5 million and establishing a special office in Cyprus staffed by 3 members,

D. whereas there have been recent reports that a number of missing persons are still alive in Turkey,

E. whereas, on humanitarian grounds above all, the relatives of the missing persons must be given a conclusive answer,

F. whereas the European Commission of Human Rights (Council of Europe) has decided that there is an infringement of Article 5 of the European Convention which provides for evidence to be supplied with regard to the fate of the missing victims of the Cypriot tragedy,

1. Calls on the Council and Commission, following the example of the US Congress, to take the necessary steps to investigate the fate of the missing people of Cyprus and to report back to Parliament as soon as possible,

2. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Commission, the Council, the parliaments of the Member States and to the Cypriot and the Turkish Governments.
Case 4:06-cv-00181-JEJ Document 6 Filed 03/03/06 Page 1 of 2
Case 4:06-cv-00181-JEJ Document 6 Filed 03/03/06 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-2000
<CASH>                                         543,227
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  296,413
<ALLOWANCES>                                    20,000
<INVENTORY>                                    579,621
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,443,713
<PP&E>                                       5,192,955
<DEPRECIATION>                                 524,030
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,165,138
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,292,001
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     5,765,044
<OTHER-SE>                                 (3,697,388)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,165,138
<SALES>                                      2,096,372
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,096,372
<CGS>                                        2,188,265
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,538,936
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             167,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,580,778)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,580,778)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                     (98,189)
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,580,778)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.37)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.37)


</TABLE>