alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense Logistics AgencyThe Nation's Combat Logistics Support Agency

Search
Search

Search

-  Home		 
-  What DLA Offers    -  Excess Property Disposal             
  -  Document Services             
  -  Products             
  -  Services             
  -  Programs 
-  Working With DLA    -  Applications             
  -  Small Business             
  -  Federal and International Cataloging             
  -  Defense Data Standards             
  -  Events             
  -  Procurement Policies             
  -  Government Programs             
  -  Forms 
-  Organizations    -  DLA Headquarters             
  -  DLA Aviation             
  -  DLA Disposition Services             
  -  DLA Distribution             
  -  DLA Energy             
  -  DLA Land and Maritime             
  -  DLA Troop Support             
  -  DLA CENTCOM & SOCOM             
  -  DLA Europe & Africa             
  -  DLA Indo-Pacific 
-  Customer Support    -  Self Help Tools             
  -  How to Order             
  -  Find Your Order             
  -  Customer Facing Offices             
  -  Training             
  -  Brochures             
  -  Warfighter Support             
  -  Customer Service Management 
-  Careers		 
-  About DLA    -  Contact Us             
  -  Locations             
  -  Leaders             
  -  News             
  -  History             
  -  Media Gallery             
  -  DLA Campaigns 

HomeAbout DLAImages

# DLA Images

Search

Search

                                  - All Images 
                                  - Other 

                                  - Upload Date
                                  - Photo Date
                                  - Title

Share

----

Download Image: Small ()Medium ()Full Size (0.5 MB)

Tags:DLA Aviation, Farrington, employee of the month

Photo by:VIRIN: 

Photo Gallery
ORANGE COUNTY MAYOR 

## TERESAJACOBS P.O. Box 1393,201 SouTH RosALIND AvENUE , ORLANDO, FL 32802-1393 PHONE: 407-836-7370 • FAX: 407-836-7360 • Mayor@ocfl.net February 5, 2014

The Honorable Anthony R. Foxx Secretary United States Department ofTransportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue , S
.E. Washington , DC 20590 Re: NORWEGIAN AIR INTERNATIONAL LIMITED Docket No
. OST-2013-0204 Dear Secretary Foxx: As Mayor of Orange County, I am writing in support of Norwegian Air International Limited's application in the above-referenced docket for authority to provide scheduled low-cost international air service to Orlando International Airport
. International air service is vital to Orange County, and to the broader Central Florida economy. Our tourism industry is strongly supported by international air service, and generates more than $52 billion dollars annually
. Accordingly, one of my highest economic priorities is to support increased international flight options at Orlando International Airport. This is good for passengers and shippers as it expands competitive choice , and it is critical to stimulating jobs and commercial activity. Simply put, expanded international air service at Orlando International is an engine that drives significant economic activity in Central Florida while creating and supporting tens ofthousands ofjobs. We look forward to welcoming the new Norwegian Air Shuttle service this summer. This service will be great news for the Central Florida economy, opening up all that we have to offer to the large numbers of new customers who are empowered to travel to the United States by the introduction of a low-cost carrier air service. The Greater Orlando Aviation Authority estimates it will produce $36 million in annual economic benefits for our local community
. In addition to indirectjobs, I understand Norwegian Air Shuttle plans to employ 150 fl ight attendants and crew in Florida
. We have every reason to expect that the success of the Orlando service will result in the Florida crew hiring to increase beyond that initial number. Secretary Foxx, my constituents and Central Florida look forward to benefitting from the new Norwegian Air Shuttle service to Orlando
. We look forward to welcoming Norwegian Air and its economic impacts and new jobs to our region
. We are confident that the new service will be successful and will continue to grow over the years. Thank you for your consideration in support of Norwegian Air International Limited's pending application
.
EXHIBIT 32.2

 

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

I, Daniel Masters, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge, Organic Spice Imports, Inc.'s QuarterlyReport on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended December 31, 2011 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents inall material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Organic Spice Imports, Inc.

 

Date: 2/2/12			 By: /s/ Daniel Masters

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

Name: Daniel Masters

Title: Chief Financial Officer
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION IX

75 Hawthorne Street

San Francisco, CA 94105

MEMORANDUM

DATE: September 4, 2015

TO: EPA Region 9 Rulemaking File for the BAAQMD NSR SIP Submittal

FROM: Shaheerah Kelly, EPA Region 9, Air Division, Permits Office

SUBJECT: September 4, 2015 Conference Phone Call regarding the EPA Proposed Limited 

Approval and Limited Disapproval of Regulation 2, Rules 1 & 2

ATTENDEES

• Kerry Drake, EPA Region 9, Air Division

• Laura Yannayon, EPA Region 9, Air Division

• Ann Lyons, EPA Region 9, Air Division

• Shaheerah Kelly, EPA Region 9, Air Division

• Sandy Crockett, BAAQMD Counsel’s Office

SUMMARY

1. 40 CFR 51.160(a) and (b) – District’s rule must include provisions that ensure new and 

modified sources “will not interfere with attainment or maintenance of the” NAAQS. What 

are guidelines or targets for analysis to answer question about whether a source will interfere 

with the NAAQS? Modeling for all sources? If so, what is the appropriate cutoff for 

modeling?

2. 40 CFR 51.307 – The current rule only requires a 100-km distance threshold, which EPA has 

cited as a deficiency. BAAQMD is seeking definitive rule guidelines. Since the 

determination for when a project “may have an impact” on a Class I area and a visibility 

analysis is required is based on consultation with the Federal Land Manager (FLM), EPA 

suggested using the guidelines in the FLM’s FLAG guidance or referencing this guidance in 

the rule. EPA also suggested that BAAQMD may consider using looking at South Coast Rule 

1303.

ATTACHMENTS

• None
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h

Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,

J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk January 29, 2010

d0125 

# Order

January 29, 2010

139902

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 139902 COA: 293591 Wayne CC: 08-011693-FC RAY MORRIS THOMAS, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the September 29, 2009 order of the Court of Appeals is consider ed, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented s hould be reviewed by this Court.
#### Furlow, Appellant, *v.*Roland, Executor.

*Decedents’ estates*— Claim *for domestic services*— Nonsuit.

In an action against the executor of a decedent’s estate for domestic services rendered testatrix, judgment of nonsuit was properly entered where there was no proof of an express promise, and the testimony and presumption rebutted an implied promise to pay *71for the services rendered and where the presumption that the plaintiff was paid at stated intervals was not overcome.

Argued May 14, 1917.

Appeal, No. 336, Jan. T., 1916, by plaintiff, from judgment of nonsuit of C. P. Lancaster Co., Sept. T., 1915, No. 25, in case of Annie L. Furlow v. J. D. Roland, Executor of Lucetta Lehn.

Before Brown, C. J., Potter, Stewart, Moschzisker and Walling, JJ.

Affirmed.

Assumpsit to recover for domestic services. Before Hassler, J.

The opinion of the Supreme Court states the case.

The trial judge entered a compulsory nonsuit which the court subsequently refused to strike off. Plaintiff appealed.

*Error assigned*was in refusing to strike off judgment of nonsuit.

*B. F. Davis,*for appellant.

*M. G. Schaeffer,*for appellee.

June 30, 1917:

Per Curiam,

The claim of the appellant is for domestic services rendered appellee’s testatrix. The nonsuit, which the court below refused *to take*off, was entered by the trial judge for three good reasons: (1) The plaintiff declared on an express promise by the defendant’s decedent to pay her for the services rendered, but at the trial failed to prove any such promise; (2) even though the plaintiff could recover, under her statement, on an implied promise, the testimony showed that the services were rendered under such circumstances as to rebut a promise to pay for them; and (3) even though the plaintiff could recover under her statement on an implied promise, and the services were such as to imply a promise on the part *72of the decedent to pay for them, she cannot recover because there is a presumption that she was paid at stated intervals.

Judgment affirmed.
AD Economic Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-2011-0695 Directorate ID: 2011-SW-001-AD

Helicopter Model: MD Helicopters, Inc. Model MD900 Helicopters

Number of Helicopters (U.S. Operators): 12 Helicopters in the US Registry.

Reason: 

Costs:

Parts per Helicopter $12,480

Labor per Helicopter

(13 x $85/work-hour)

$1,105

Other (Explain)

Total Cost per Helicopter $13,585

Total US Fleet Cost $163,020

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action?” Yes ( ) No ()

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? Yes ( ) Explain Below No ()

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities?

Yes ( ) No ()

Project Engineer: Eric Schreiber
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v *393Mauricio Suarez, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward McLaughlin, J.), rendered on February 7, 1989, convicting defendant, upon a plea of guilty of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree and sentencing defendant to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of five years to life, unanimously affirmed.

We are unpersuaded that the sentence imposed was unduly harsh or severe. Taking into account, "among other things, the crime charged, the particular circumstances of the individual before the court and the purpose of a penal sanction”, we perceive no abuse of discretion warranting a reduction in sentence. *(People v Farrar, 52*NY2d 302, 305.)

Further, defendant was sentenced in accordance with his plea bargain and within statutory guidelines. "Having received the benefit of his bargain, defendant should be bound by its terms.” *(People v Felman,*141 AD2d 889, 890, *lv denied*72 NY2d 918.) Concur—Murphy, P. J., Carro, Kupferman and Smith, JJ.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1

                             ADFLEX SOLUTIONS, INC.

                   COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME (LOSS) PER SHARE

                    (in thousands, except per share amounts)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                 Year Ended            Year Ended              Year Ended
                                                 December 31,          December 31,            December 31,
                                                    1994                  1995                    1996
                                                   ------               -------                --------
<S>                                              <C>                   <C>                     <C>      
Net income (loss)                                  $7,046               $(3,723)               $(25,024)

Computation of shares used in net
income (loss) per share:

Weighted average common
shares  outstanding                                 5,028                 6,855                   8,580


Incremental common equivalent
shares
representing shares issuable
upon exercise of stock options                        550                    --                      --
and warrants (1)
                                                   ------               -------                --------


Total weighted average shares -                     5,578                 6,855                   8,580
primary
                                                   ======               =======                ========

Total weighted average shares -
fully diluted                                       5,578                 6,855                   8,580
                                                   ======               =======                ========

Primary net income (loss) per common
and                                                $ 1.26               $  (.54)               $  (2.92)
common equivalent share
                                                   ======               =======                ========

Fully diluted net income (loss) per
common and common equivalentent
share                                              $ 1.26               $  (.54)               $  (2.92)
                                                   ======               =======                ========
</TABLE>


--------
(1) Amount calculated using the treasury stock method and fair market values for
stock.
SERVED: AUGUST 1, 2014 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTER OF 

ANKITRAMESHCHANDRA VYAS 

DOCKET NO. FAA-2014-0410 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT OF PROCEEDING 

. This proceeding (heretofore designated as Case No. 2014-GL-33-0029) has been 

assigned to Administrative Law Judge Richard C. Goodwin. All future pleadings and other 

communications regarding this proceeding shall be served on the Judge, the FAA Hearing 

Docket, and the other persons on the att~ch 

Attachment - Service List 
SERVICE LIST -BY U.S. MAIL 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1 0001 

Ankitrameshchandra Vyas, Respondent 

44040 Laurel Canyon Way 

Fremont, CA 94539 

Chris G. Zurales, Complainant's Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration, 

Great Lakes Region, AGL-7K 

2300 East Devon A venue 

Des Plaines, IL 60018-4696 

TEL: 847-294-7713 

FAJ(: 847-294-7498 

ONE COPY 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

Office ofHearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-5121 Staff Assistant 

FAJ(: 202-366-7536 

Docket No. FAA-2014-0410 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1000, Washington, 

DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. 

2
VI 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 71 

For the relief of Josephina Valera Lopez. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 23 (legislative day, JANUARY 3), 2013 

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

to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

For the relief of Josephina Valera Lopez. 

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

3 SECTION 1. ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provi5 sion of law, for the purposes of the Immigration and Na6 tionality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.), Josephina Valera 

7 Lopez shall be deemed to have been lawfully admitted to, 

8 and remained in, the United States, and shall be eligible 

9 for adjustment of status to that of an alien lawfully admit10 ted for permanent residence under section 245 of the Im11 migration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1255) upon filing 

12 an application for such adjustment of status. 


smartinez on DSK6TPVN1PROD with 
2 

•S 71 IS

1 (b) APPLICATION AND PAYMENT OF FEES.—Sub2 section (a) shall apply only if the application for adjust3 ment of status is filed with appropriate fees not later than 

4 2 years after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

5 (c) REDUCTION OF IMMIGRANT VISA NUMBERS.— 

6 Upon the granting of permanent resident status to 

7 Josephina Valera Lopez, the Secretary of State shall in8 struct the proper officer to reduce by 1, during the current 

9 or next following fiscal year, the total number of immi10 grant visas that are made available to natives of the coun11 try of the birth of Josephina Valera Lopez under section 

12 202(a)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 

13 U.S.C. 1152(a)(2)). 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPVN1PROD with
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Emilio Gonzalez, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Jerome Marks, J.), rendered on October 8, 1987, convicting defendant, upon a plea of guilty of two counts of robbery in the second degree and sentencing defendant to concurrent indeterminate terms of imprisonment of *IV2*to *4XA*years to run consecutive to a previously imposed judgment of the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Peggy Bernheim, J.), convicting defendant of robbery in the first degree, and sentencing him to an indefinite term of imprisonment of 5 to 10 years, unanimously affirmed.

We are unpersuaded that the sentence imposed was unduly harsh or severe. Taking into account, "among other things, the crime charged, the particular circumstances of the individual before the court and the purpose of a penal sanction”, we perceive no abuse of discretion warranting a reduction in sentence. *(People v Farrar,*52 NY2d 302, 305.)

Further, defendant was sentenced in accordance with his plea bargain and within statutory guidelines. "Having received the benefit of his bargain, defendant should be bound by its terms.” *(People v Felman,*141 AD2d 889, 890, *lv denied*72 NY2d 918.) Concur—Milonas, J. P., Ross, Kassal, Smith and Rubin, JJ.
Exhibit 10.2


GSV
Growth Credit LLC

2925 Woodside Road


Woodside,
CA 94062


  


[   ], 2016


 


GSV Growth Credit Fund Inc.


2925 Woodside Road


Woodside, CA 94062


 


		Re:	Management Fees Waiver



 


Dear Ladies and Gentlemen:


 


Reference is hereby
made to the Investment Advisory Agreement (the “Agreement”), dated [  ], 2016 by and between GSV
Growth Credit Fund Inc. (the “Company”) and GSV Growth Credit LLC (“we,” “us,”
or “our”). Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meaning ascribed to them in the
Agreement.


 


We hereby agree to
permanently waive all or such portion of the Base Management Fee that we would otherwise be entitled to receive under the Agreement
on Capital Commitments accepted by the Company through March 31, 2016, for the period commencing on the effective date of the Agreement
and ending on June 30, 2016.


 


This letter agreement
shall be binding on the undersigned and its respective successors and assigns.


 


This letter agreement
shall be governed by and interpreted and construed in accordance with the governing law provisions set forth in Section 11 of the
Agreement.


 


No term or provision
of this letter agreement may be amended, changed, waived, altered or modified except by written instrument executed and delivered
by the party against whom such amendment, change, waiver, alteration or modification is to be enforced.


  


[Signature page to follow]


 






     


     


    




 


	 	Sincerely yours,
	 	 
	 	GSV GROWTH CREDIT LLC
	 	 	 
	 	By:	 
	 	 	Name: R. David Spreng
	 	 	Title: Managing Member


 


[Signature Page for Fee Waiver Letter]
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13**  **- 6**  **167**

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , P laintiff

- Appell ee ,
v. TSAIKUWN ALDAGO HAIRSTON , Defendant

- Appell ant .

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia , at Danville
. Jackson L. Kiser , Senior District Judge. ( 4:08

- cr - 00022

- JLK

- RSB

- 1; 4:12

- cv - 80403

- JLK

RSB )

Submitted : June 13, 2013 Decided: June 17, 2013

Before NIEMEYER, KING , and FLOYD , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Tsaikuwn Aldago Hairston , Appellant Pro Se. Ronald Andrew Bassford, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia , for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
T saikuwn Aldago Hairston seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. A. § 2255 ( West Supp. 2012 ) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (1) (B) (200 6 ). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (200 6 ). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard b y demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutio nal right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Hairston has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Hairston’s motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispens e with oral argument because the facts and legal con tentions are adequately presented in the3 materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
EXHIBIT 23
<PAGE>






                  [LETTERHEAD OF REGIER CARR & MONROE, L.L.P.]



                          INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S CONSENT

We consent to the  incorporation by reference in the  Registration  Statement on
Form S-8 of Guthrie  Savings,  Inc.,  filed  with the  Securities  and  Exchange
Commission  on March 1, 1996,  of our report dated April 26, 1997 in this Annual
Report on Form 10-KSB of Guthrie  Savings,  Inc. for the fiscal year ended March
31, 1997.



                                             /s/ Regier Carr & Monroe, L.L.P.



June 25, 1997
Wichita, Kansas