alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
BEFORE THE
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY WASHINGTON, DC

_______________________________ ) In the matter of the application of ) )
WINGS AIRWAYS , INC. ) DOCKET DOT

- OST

- 2010

- 0023 ) For a certificate of public convenience )

a nd necessity under 49 USC 41102 ) _______________________________)

WINGS AIRWAYS , INC. REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL OF APPLICATION
WITH OUT PREJUDICE

Communications with respect to this document should be addressed to:

Holly Johnson Wings Airwa ys 2 Marine Way #175

Juneau, AK 99801 (907) 586

- 6275 holly@wingsairways



### . com

January 1 9, 201 1BEFORE THE
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY WASHINGTON, DC

_______________________________ ) In the matter of the application of ) )
WINGS AIRWAYS , INC. ) DOCKET DOT

- OST

- 2010

- 0023 ) For a certificate of public convenience )

a nd necessity under 49 USC 41102 ) _______________________________)

WINGS AIRWAYS , INC. REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL OF APPLICATION
WITH OUT PREJUDICE



### This letter will serve as a request by Wings Airways, Inc. to the U.S. Department of Transportation to dismiss without prejudice our application for Certificate of Public Convenience filed on January 25th , 2010

.
From the beginning of this process the application h as been based on our concern for the future employment of our friends and colleagues as well as the customers and communities served by our former sister company. When events took place in early 2010 that indicated that the leases on

the entire fleet of a particular airline migh t be terminated

, it appeared a major disruption in
commuter service in the Juneau area would result

.
On January 8, 2011 notification was received regarding a signing of lease extensions on the

entire fleet of five aircraft. This act ion has resulted in the Board of Wings Airways, Inc. decision to request dismissal of our application.

Our sincere intent from the start was to prepare for a disruption in service leaving employees without jobs and communities without access. While local competitors would have you believe there was an elaborate conspiracy theory we can assure the department our intent has always been simple and transparent.

We earnestly appreciate the time and effort the Department of Transportation office has provided and hope we do not have to revisit this process in the future.

### W herefore , Wings Airways , Inc. respectfully submits this request for dismissal without prejudice of t he application filed January 25th, 2010

.

Respectfully submitted,

Holly A. Johnson, President

W ings Airways

, Inc

. 2 Marine Way, Suite 175 Juneau, Alaska 99801 (907) 586

- 6275 holly@wingsairways.com

### CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify a copy of the foregoing reply of Wings Air ways , Inc

. has been served this 1 9 th


### day of January 2011 , upon all persons listed on the Certificate of Service within the Wings Airways

, Inc. application.

Respectfully submitted,

Holly A. Johnson, President

Wings Airways

, Inc

. 2 Marine Way, Suite 175

Junea u, Alaska 99801 (907) 586

- 6275 holly@wingsairways.com
**Exhibit 99.2**

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

In connection with the Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2002 (the “Report”) of Tudor Fund For Employees L.P.(the “Partnership”), I, the Chief Financial Officer of the General Partner of the Partnership, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as enacted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

  

| (i)           | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and 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 Partnership. |
|                         |                                                                                                                                                     |
|                         |                                                                                                                                                     |
|                         |                                                                                                                                                     | By: | /s/  JOHN R. TORELL |
|                         |                                                                                                                                                     |   |  |
|                         |                                                                                                                                                     | ** ** | **John R. Torell Chief Financial Officer of  Second Management LLC, the General Partner** |

 

March 28, 2003
**EXHIBIT23.1**

**CONSENTOF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

Bank of America,N.A., as Trustee   for the Hugoton Royalty Trust:

We consent to theincorporation by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-81849 on Form S-8of XTO Energy Inc. of our reports dated February 28, 2007, with respect to thestatements of assets, liabilities, and trust corpus of the Hugoton RoyaltyTrust as of December 31, 2006 and 2005, and the related statements ofdistributable income and changes in trust corpus for each of the years in thethree-year period ended December 31, 2006, the trustee’s assessment of theeffectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31,2006 and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as ofDecember 31, 2006, which reports appear in the December 31, 2006 Annual Reporton Form 10-K of the Hugoton Royalty Trust.

KPMG LLP

Dallas, TexasMarch 1, 2007

----
No. D-2220.

#### In re Disbarment of Drager.

Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see *ante,*p. 1034.]
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 30 (Thursday, February 13, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 6768]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-3556]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. CP97-229-000]


Texas Eastern Transmission Corporation; Notice of Request Under 
Blanket Authorization

February 7, 1997.
    Take notice that on February 4, 1997, Texas Eastern Transmission 
Corporation (Texas Eastern), 5400 Westheimer Court, Houston, Texas 
77056-5310, filed in Docket No. CP97-229-000 a request pursuant to 
Sections 157.205 and 157.211 of the Commission's Regulations under the 
Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.205 and 157.211) for authorization to 
construct a delivery point in New Jersey for providing natural gas 
deliveries to Elizabethtown Gas Company, a Division of NUI Corporation 
(Elizabethtown), under Texas Eastern's blanket certificate issued in 
Docket No. CP82-535-000 pursuant to Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act, 
all as more fully set forth in the request that is on file with the 
commission and open to public inspection.
    Texas Eastern proposes to construct, install, own, operate and 
maintain an 8-inch tap valve (Tap) and dual 6-inch orifice meters 
(Meter Station), electronic gas measurement equipment, and 
approximately 120 feet of 8-inch pipeline which will extend from the 
Meter Station to the Tap and appurtenant facilities on Texas Eastern's 
existing 24-inch Line No. 20-B at Mile Post 7.68 in Union County, New 
Jersey. In addition to these facilities, Elizabethtown will install, or 
cause to be installed, and own, operate and maintain a heater and 
pressure regulation valves. The estimated capital costs of Texas 
Eastern's proposal is $1,922,000. Texas Eastern will deliver up to 58 
MMcf/d of natural gas at the proposed delivery point.
    Texas Eastern states that its existing tariff does not prohibit the 
additional facility and that the new delivery point will have no effect 
on peak or annual deliveries and that this proposal can be accomplished 
without detriment or disadvantage to other customers.
    Any person or the Commission's staff may, within 45 days after 
issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule 
214 of the Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to 
intervene or notice of intervention and pursuant to Section 157.205 of 
the Regulations under the Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.205) a protest to 
the request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed therefor, 
the proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized effective the 
day after the time allowed for filing a protest. If a protest is filed 
and not withdrawn within 30 days after the time allowed for filing a 
protest, the instant request shall be treated as an application for 
authorization pursuant to Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-3556 Filed 2-12-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### Ziola Rose DE SCHULL QUENDO, Appellant, v. Judith Harriet FRISCH, Norbert Frisch, and Allstate Insurance Company, Appellees.

No. 69-1036.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Sept. 22, 1970.

William F. Sullivan IV; Jeanne Hey-ward, Miami, for appellant.

Charles C. Papy, Jr., and John Carruth-ers, Coral Gables, for appellees.

Before PEARSON, C. J., and CHARLES CARROLL and SWANN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The judgment appealed from was entered for defendants upon the granting of their motion for directed verdict at the close of the evidence, in an action brought by the plaintiff-appellant for damages for personal injuries received by the plaintiff while a pedestrian, which were alleged to have been caused by negligent operation of an automobile by the defendant Judith Harriet Frisch.

Upon reviewing the testimony adduced in the cause in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, disregarding conflicts in the evidence and indulging in plaintiff’s favor every reasonable intendment deducible from the evidence (Rodi v. Florida Greyhound Lines, Fla.1963, 62 So.2d 355, 356), we conclude that the trial judge was in error in holding, as was essential that he do in granting defendants’ motion for directed verdict,1 that there was no evidence whatever adduced that could in law support a verdict for the plaintiff. Inasmuch as the cause is to be retried, it would serve no useful purpose for this court to restate here the evidence presented at trial.

Accordingly, the judgment is reversed, and the cause is remanded for new trial.

1

. See Chambers v. Loftin, Fla.1953, 67 So.2d 220, 221; Mullis v. City of Miami, Fla.1952, 60 So.2d 174; Cadore v. Karp, Fla.1957, 91 So.2d 806; Paikin v. Beach Cabs, Inc., Fla.App.1966, 187 So.2d 93, 94; Guerriero v. Adams, Fla.App.1966, 190 So.2d 432.
EXHIBIT 31.1
**CERTIFICATIONS**
I, Terry L. Collins, certify that:
1.  I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Argon ST, Inc.; 2.  Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in lightof the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this quarterly report; 3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis quarterly 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 presentedin this quarterly report; 4.  The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 a.  Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;  b.  Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  c.  Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s second fiscal quarter that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and
5.  The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
 a.  All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonable likely to adversely affectthe 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 whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
Date: May 11, 2005   /s/ Terry L. Collins    Terry L. Collins  Chief Executive Officer
**EXHIBIT32.2**

### ** **

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Cubic Corporation (the “Corporation”)on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2008 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,William W. Boyle, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of theCorporation, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to myknowledge:

 

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

 

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

 

 
| /s/  W. W. Boyle                                    |   |
|-----------------------------------------------------|--------|
| W.  W. Boyle                                        |
| Senior  Vice President, and Chief Financial Officer |
|                                                |
| Date:  February 4, 2009                        |

 

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

<ARTICLE> 5
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                         210,540
<SECURITIES>                                        13
<RECEIVABLES>                                6,584,327
<ALLOWANCES>                                   302,800
<INVENTORY>                                  8,189,212
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            15,353,701
<PP&E>                                       6,998,499
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,902,922
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              23,512,074
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,661,244
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        32,960
<OTHER-SE>                                  10,425,560
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                23,512,074
<SALES>                                     24,951,918
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            25,217,456
<CGS>                                       18,418,278
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               24,669,422
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             460,888
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 87,146
<INCOME-TAX>                                    30,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             57,146
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    57,146
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .02
        

</TABLE>
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     UT


<LEGEND>                      The schedule contains summary financial
                              information extracted from Consolidated
                              Balance Sheet, Income Statement and Statement of
                              Cash Flows for Consolidated Edison , Inc. and is
                              qualified in its entirety by reference to such
                              financial statements and the notes thereto.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0001047862
<NAME> Consolidated Edison, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                      1,000

<S>                               <C>

<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                  Dec-31-2000

<PERIOD-END>                       Mar-31-2000

<PERIOD-TYPE>                      3-Mos

<BOOK-VALUE>                       Per-Book

<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>          11,442,702

<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>        490,173

<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>             1,475,157

<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>           2,046,099

<TOTAL-ASSETS>                     15,454,131

<COMMON>                           588,720

<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>          857,577

<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                4,993,778

<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>     5,424,129

<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>              37,050

<PREFERRED>                        212,563

<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>               4,375,030

<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                     0

<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>              0

<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>     510,129

<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>      320,000

<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>              0

<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>        33,805

<LEASES-CURRENT>                   3,675

<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>     4,537,750

<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>      15,454,131

<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>          2,318,591

<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>               101,425

<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>         1,934,457

<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>         2,035,882

<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>            282,709

<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                 2,378

<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>     285,087

<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>           93,554

<NET-INCOME>                       191,533

<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>        3,398

<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>      188,135

<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>           115,708

<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>          83,313

<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>             199,182

<EPS-BASIC>                         .88

<EPS-DILUTED>                         .88



</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Paul McKenzie, Appellant. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.

[721 NYS2d 296]

—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed July 11, 2000, which, upon reconsideration, adhered to its prior decision ruling that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant, employed as a track worker by the New York City Transit Authority, was charged with failing to submit sick *741leave applications or medical documentation for a series of work absences from July 1999 through September 1999. Significantly, claimant previously had received a 30-day suspension and a final warning for .time and leave violations. After an arbitration hearing, at which claimant had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the charges, he was found to have been absent without a valid excuse and his discharge from employment was sustained. Given the collateral effect of the arbitrator’s factual finding *(see, Matter of Carter [New York City Dept. of Personnel*— Sweeney], 242 AD2d 777, *lv denied*91 NY2d 809), substantial evidence supports the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board that claimant was discharged from his employment due to disqualifying misconduct *(see, Matter of Guilarte [Commissioner of Labor],*268 AD2d 653).

Cardona, P. J., Carpinello, Mugglin, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 247 (Wednesday, December 24, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67330-67331]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-33566]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Rural Utilities Service


Interest Rate for FY 1998 RUS Cost-of-Money Loans and Maximum 
Amount of an RUS Cost-of-Money or Rural Telephone Bank Loan for FY 1998

AGENCY: Rural Utilities Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Rural Utilities Service (RUS) announces that interest 
rates on cost-of-money loans approved during fiscal year (FY) 1998 may 
exceed the 7 percent per year statutory limit, and also announces the 
maximum loan amount that may be made available to a single borrower in 
FY 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ken B. Chandler, Acting Assistant 
Administrator-Telecommunications Program, Rural Utilities Service, STOP 
1590, Room 4056, South Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., 
Washington, DC 20250-1590. Telephone (202) 720-9554, Facsimile (202) 
720-0810.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that under Title III 
of the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, 
and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 1998 (Appropriations Act of 
1998) (Pub. L. 105-86, November 18, 1997), the interest rate for RUS 
cost-of-money loans approved during FY 1998 may exceed the 7 percent 
per year ceiling established by Pub. L. 103-129 (see 7 CFR 
1735.31(c)(1)). The Appropriations

[[Page 67331]]

Act of 1998 removes the 7 percent interest rate ceiling for loans made 
during FY 1998 only (October 1, 1997 to September 30, 1998).
    Further, in accordance with 7 CFR 1610.6(d) and 1735.31(d), RUS has 
determined the maximum amount of an application for an RUS cost-of-
money or Rural Telephone Bank loan that will be considered for funding 
during FY 1998 as $30,000,000 and $17,500,000, respectively.

    Dated: December 16, 1997.
Wally Beyer,
Administrator, Rural Utilities Service.
[FR Doc. 97-33566 Filed 12-23-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-15-P