alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
08/19/2010 14:28 FAX 2024935142 FAA + DMS @l001/002 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FIHDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

In Lhe Matter of: 

ROSLYNE MARIE ELDER, 

Respondent 

* FAA Docket CP10SW0004 

*DMSFAA-2010-0315 

* 

* Hon. Isaac D. Benkin (ALJ) 

/; .;v ^^im 

• - 0 

:T 

WITHDRAWAL OF COMPLAINT 

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), in accordance with Section 13.215 of the 

Rules of Practice in FAA Civil Penalty Action.'?, hereby withdraws its complaint. This complaint 

i.s withdrawn because parties have reached a settlement in this matter. 

Dated this 4th day of August, 2010. 

Respectfiilly submitted, 

LYNETTE WORD 

Regional Counsel 

Southwest Region 

By: 

Yolanda Ayala Bemal 

Agency Attorney 

(817)222-5070 
08/19/201 0 14:29 FAX 2024935142 FAA * DMS l2|002/002 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on this date the original and a copy of the Withdrawal of Complaint wa.s 

mailed by Federal Expres-s Mail to: 

Hearing Docket 

Federal Aviation Administration 

600 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suitc 2W1000 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

1 hereby certify that a copy of Withdrawal of Complaint was sent via fax and mailed thi.s 

dale by Federal Express Mail to: 

The Honorable Isaac D. Benkin, 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Fa.st Building Ground Floor, Room E12-E320 

1200 New Jersey Ave., S.E. 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

I hereby certify that a copy of Withdrawal of Complaint was mailed this date by Federal 

Express Mail to: 

Roslyne Marie Elder 

835 Sierra Visla drive, Apt. 326 

Las Vegas, NV 89169 

Gay Wttiltington, Managemwit and Program Analyst 

Federal Aviation Admini.stration 

Fort Worth, TcAas 76137 

Dated: August 4, 2010
NRCS

Natural Resources ConservationService

U.S.DepartmentofAgriculture

Wetlands Reserve Program

NRCS

Natural Resources ConservationService

U.S.DepartmentofAgriculture

What is the Wetlands Reserve 

Program

The Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP) is a 

voluntary program to restore, protect and enhance 

wetlands on private property. It is an opportunity 

for landowners to receive financial incentives 

to restore wetlands that have been drained for 

agriculture production or have been altered by 

multiple flood events.

The Plan

The program offers landowners three options: 

• Permanent easements

• 30-year easements

• Restoration cost-share agreements of a 

minimum 10- year duration

How WRP Works

Landowners who choose to participate in WRP may 

sell a conservation easement or enter into a costshare restoration agreement with USDA to restore 

and protect wetlands. The landowner voluntarily 

limits future use of the land, yet retains private 

ownership. The landowner and NRCS develop a 

plan for the restoration and maintenance of the 

wetland. 

Landowner Eligibility

• Ownership of the land for the last seven years

• Must be in compliance with highly erodible land 

and wetland conservation provisions

• Must meet adjusted gross income (AGI) 

limitation
The USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

Wisconsin April 2011

WRP Financial Assistance 

Permanent Easements: A conservation easement 

in perpetuity that pays up to 100 percent of the 

easement value and restoration costs.

30-year Easement: Easement expires after 30 

years that pays up to 75 percent of the easement 

value and restoration costs.

10-year cost-share agreements: An agreement with 

no easement purchase involved. USDA pays for up 

to 75 percent of the restoration costs.

What’s Eligible?

• Land must be restorable and suitable for 

wetland and wildlife benefits

• Farmed wetlands

• Adjacent lands that contribute to wetland 

functions and value

• Upland buffer areas for ecological benefits

• Riparian areas that can be restored that link 

wetland areas

• Lands significantly altered by flooding

What Land is Not Eligible?

• Wetlands converted after December 1985

• Wetlands that are not degraded and 

functioning properly

• Land that is in public ownership

More information is available on 

the web at 

www.wi.nrcs.usda.gov/programs

Some of the Benefits:

• Restore, protect and enhance wetland 

ecosystems

• Protect the land from soil erosion

• Reduce flooding

• Opportunity to develop wildlife 

habitat including threatened and 

endangered species habitat

• Improve water quality and recharge 

groundwater

• Protect biological diversity

How to Apply

Landowners may apply by contacting the NRCS 

office in the county in which the land is located.
#### STATE of Florida ex rel. David DENNIS alias Darnell Dennis, Petitioner, v. Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, Director, Division of Corrections, Respondent.

No. 71-7.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Jan. 14, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Habeas corpus denied.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION IX 

75 Hawthorne Street 

San Francisco, CA 94105 

September 28, 2011

Memorandum

Subject: South Coast and San Joaquin Valley Emissions Reductions 

from ARB's Operational Idling Requirements

From: Doris Lo, EPA Region 9, Air Division, Planning Office (AIR-2)

To: San Joaquin Valley PM2.5 Docket No. EPA-R09-OAR-2010-0516 and 

South Coast PM2.5 Docket No. EPA-R09-OAR-2009-0366

On September 21, 2011, in response to my question, Kurt Karperos, ARB, called to report that the 

reductions associated with the operational (or manual shut-off) requirement of ARB’s heavy-duty engine 

idling rule are 1.3 tons per day NOx in the South Coast and 0.2 tons per day NOx in the San Joaquin 

Valley.
Page 1 of 3

Disposition Comments

Docket No: FAA-2012-0846 These comments are in

Directorate ID: 2012-CE-021-AD response to an SNPRM

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

Next Step: FRAN SNPRM

 No Comments/Only Supportive Comments Received – If this box is checked, no signatures are 

required.

No Has the referenced service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? If yes, 

list latest revision and attach a copy. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously 

published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance.

Instructions: Summarize all comments by issue (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of 

each issue. All comments relating to the same issue should be discussed together. Do not list all of the issues 

from one commenter together. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and 

describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA-IR-M-8040.1C Chapter 9.

ISSUE 1: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD: 

If NO, we don’t agree because 

ISSUE 2: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD:
Page 2 of 3

If NO, we don’t agree because 

For additional issues, double-click here
Page 3 of 3

Signature Section

Signature indicates concurrence with this action.

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

ASE Printed Name: G. Keith Noles Date

Branch Manager Date
#### Henry C. THOMPSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. W. C. WARMACK, d/b/a Warmack’s Used Cars, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 2824.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Third Circuit.

June 25, 1969.

James L. Davis, Many, for defendant-appellee.

Thomas A. Self, Many, for plaintff-ap-pellant.

*On Motion to Dismiss the Appeal.*

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff-appellant appeals from adverse judgment of December 12, 1968. The order granting the devolutive appeal made it returnable to this court on February 24, 1969.

The defendant-appellee moves to dismiss the appeal in this court, by motion filed on June 3, 1969. At this date the appeal had not been lodged here. Attached.to the motion was a certificate from the clerk of court showing that no extension of time for perfecting said appeal beyond February 24 had ever been applied for or granted.

The motion to dismiss the appeal is denied. It is the duty of the clerk of the trial court to prepare the record and lodge it “upon the timely payment to him by the appellant of all fees due in connection with the appeal”, and “Failure of the clerk to *564prepare and lodge the record on appeal either timely or correctly shall not prejudice the appeal.” LSA-C.C.P. Art. 2127.

There is no showing that the appellant failed to pay the costs of the appeal or filing fee timely. See LSA-C.C.P. Art. 2126. If such failure were the reason for the tardy filing of the appeal, then upon timely motion this is a ground for dismissal of the appeal. McMillen Feeder Finance Corp. v. Thompson, La.App. 3d Cir., 171 So.2d 827. Therefore, in overruling this motion, we will do so without prejudice to the right of the defendant-appellee to raise this ground, if applicable, by further timely motion to dismiss.

Motion to dismiss the appeal overruled.
EXHIBIT 12.1

NTL INCORPORATED AND SUBSIDIARIES        COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES        (in millions)

|                                   |  | Year ended December 31, |  
|---------------------------------- |  | ----------------------- | -
|
|
|Fixed charges:                     |  |                         |  
|Interest                           |  | £235.8                  |  
|Interest portion of rental expense |  | 14.2                    |  
|                                   |  |                         |  
|Fixed charges                      |  | £250.0                  |  
|                                   |  |                         |  
|Earnings:                          |  |                         |  
|Loss from continuing operations    |  | £(221.9                 | )
|Fixed charges                      |  | 250.0                   |  
|Less: capitalized interest         |  |                        |  
|                                   |  |                         |  
|                                   |  | £28.1                   |  
|                                   |  |                         |  
|Ratio of earnings to fixed charges |  |                         |  
|Deficiency                         |  | £(221.9                 | )

---

The
ratio of earnings to fixed charges and combined fixed charges and preferred stock dividends is not meaningful for the periods that result in a deficit.

---



QuickLinks
EXHIBIT
32.2





WRITTEN
STATEMENT


PURSUANT
TO


18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350











The
undersigned, L. Bryan Shaul, the Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial
Officer), of Sun Healthcare Group, Inc. (the "Company"), pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, hereby certifies that:





(i)   the
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009 of the Company
(the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) and 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





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








Date:
      March 4, 2010
            /s/ L. Bryan
      ShaulL.
      Bryan Shaul
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

ANA VILLALONGO, )

Petitioner, )

) C.A. No. 06-164 Erie

vs. ) District Judge McLaughlin 

) Magistrate Judge Baxter 

FDC-PHILADELPHIA, )

Respondent. )

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

I. RECOMMENDATION

It is respectfully recommended that the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus be

transferred to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. 

II. REPORT

This is a petition for writ of habeas corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, filed by a

federal prisoner presently incarcerated at the Federal Detention Center at Philadelphia in the

Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

In his petition, Petitioner Ana Villalongo claims that she is entitled to receive 54 days of

good time credit for each year of her imprisonment pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3624(b). Petitioner is

currently serving a sentence of 54 months of imprisonment for Conspiracy to Possess with Intent

to Distribute. Her projected release date is March 10, 2008. 

As a general proposition “matters concerning the conditions of confinement or the

execution of a sentence are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the court presiding in the

district in which a prisoner is incarcerated.” DeSimone v. Lacy, 805 F.2d 321, 323 (8th Cir.

1986) citing Lee v. United States, 501 F.2d 494, 500 (8th Cir. 1974).

In the case at bar, although Petitioner was tried and convicted of her offense in this

Case 1:06-cv-00164-SJM-SPB Document 2 Filed 08/07/06 Page 1 of 2
2

district, she is not challenging the imposition of her sentence but, rather, the manner in which her

sentence is being executed. As a result, the court having subject matter jurisdiction over this

matter is the court presiding in the district in which Petitioner is incarcerated. In this case, that

court would be the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

III. CONCLUSION

It is respectfully recommended that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be transferred to

the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2241.

In accordance with the Magistrate Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1) (B) and (C), and Rule

72.1.4(B) of the Local Rules for Magistrates, the parties are allowed ten days from the date of

service to file written objections to this Report and Recommendation. Any party opposing the

objections shall have seven days from the date of service of objections to respond thereto. 

Failure to file timely objections may constitute a waiver of any appellate rights.

S/Susan Paradise Baxter 

SUSAN PARADISE BAXTER

Chief U.S. Magistrate Judge

Dated: August 7, 2006

cc: The Honorable Sean J. McLaughlin

United States District Judge

Case 1:06-cv-00164-SJM-SPB Document 2 Filed 08/07/06 Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 32
                                      ==========




     CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT






The certification set forth below is being furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission solely for the purpose of complying with Rule 13a-14(b)
or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and with Section
1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code. Derick Sinclair,
the Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer and Principal
Accounting Officer of Tactical Air Defense Services,Inc. hereby certifies that:


1. the Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
Tactical Air Defense Services, Inc.


                                          TACTICAL AIR DEFENSE SERVICES, INC.,
                                          Registrant

Dated: May 8, 2006                        /s/ Derick Sinclair
                                          ---------------------------------
                                          By: Derick Sinclair, President,
                                              Chief Executive Officer,
                                              Treasuer, Chief Financial
                                              Officer, Principal Accounting
                                              Officer and Director
#### MAX BAUER MEAT PACKER, INC., Appellant, v. S-M VACU-FREEZE CORP., etc., Appellee.

No. 70-597.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

March 9, 1971.

Rehearing Denied March 26, 1971.

Cristol, Rose & Aldrich, Miami, for appellant.

Hall & Hedrick, Miami, for appellee.

Before PEARSON, C. J., and BARK-DULL and HENDRY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff sued defendant for goods sold and delivered to the defendant. The defendant denied liability and counterclaimed for damages for breach of contract. In a non-jury trial the court entered judgment against the plaintiff on its claim and in favor of the defendant on its counterclaim.

Plaintiff seeks reversal of the judgment on the ground that there is insufficient evidence to support the judgment.

The issues which were in dispute were resolved in favor of the defendant-counter-claimant by the trial judge, whose duty it was to reconcile conflicts and evaluate testimony, to judge the credibility of the witnesses and determine the reasonableness and weight of the evidence presented.

Those findings of the trial court then come to this court clothed with the presumption of correctness and should not be disturbed unless they are clearly erroneous. The appealing party has the burden of demonstrating that the trial court’s holding is clearly erroneous.

It has not been made to appear that the proof is insufficient to support the findings and judgment of the trial court. From our study of the record we are satisfied that there is sufficient competent evidence to support the judgment appealed. Marx v. Goldfinger, Fla.App.1966, 187 So.2d 380.

Affirmed.
Exhibit 23.1

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the following Registration Statements:



of
our report dated March 16, 2005 (except for Note 21, as to which the date is April 8, 2005, and Note 23, as to which the date is August 9, 2005), with respect to
the consolidated financial statements and schedules of NTL Incorporated, included in this Form 10-K/A Amendment No. 2, and our report dated March 16, 2005, with
respect to NTL Incorporated management's assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of NTL
Incorporated, included herein.



/s/
Ernst & Young LLP
London, England
August 9, 2005

---



QuickLinks
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 284 

To direct the Secretary of the Interior to include on the engravings on 

the Taras Shevchenko Memorial in the District of Columbia the name 

of Vincent Illuzzi, Sr., who carved the statue. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 7, 2023 

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

to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To direct the Secretary of the Interior to include on the 

engravings on the Taras Shevchenko Memorial in the 

District of Columbia the name of Vincent Illuzzi, Sr., 

who carved the statue. 

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

3 SECTION 1. INCLUSION OF NAME OF VINCENT ILLUZZI, SR., 

4 ON THE TARAS SHEVCHENKO MEMORIAL IN 

5 THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 

6 The Secretary of the Interior shall include in the 

7 engravings on the statue erected as part of the Taras 

8 Shevchenko Memorial established by Public Law 86–749 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 284 IS

1 (74 Stat. 884) the name of Vincent Illuzzi, Sr., who carved 

2 the statue, with the name to be placed at an appropriate 

3 location near the names of the sculptor and architect. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
```

[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 200 (Thursday, October 16, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 53791]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-27447]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health

National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin 
Diseases; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases 
Special Emphasis Panel (SEP) meeting:

    Name of SEP: NIAMS SEP Osteoarthritis Review.
    Date: December 9-10, 1997.
    Time: December 9-8:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m.; December 10--8:00 a.m.-
adjournment.
    Place: Holiday Inn Chevy Chase, 5520 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, 
Maryland 20815.
    Contact Person: Tommy L. Broadwater, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Administrator, Natcher Building, 45 Center Drive, Rm 5AS25U, 
Bethesda, Maryland 20892-6500, Telephone: 301-594-4952.
    Purpose/Agenda: To evaluate and review research grant 
applications.
    This meeting will be closed in accordance with the provisions 
set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C. The 
discussion of these applications could reveal confidential trade 
secrets or commercial property such as patentable material and 
personal information concerning individuals associated with the 
applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly 
unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. [93.846, 
Project Grants in Arthritis, Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases 
Research], National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: October 10, 1997.
LaVerne Y. Stringfield,
Committee Management Officer, NIH.
[FR Doc. 97-27447 Filed 10-15-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
```