alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Build Up. Ploy Up. Work Up. Explore Up. Live Up. 

December 7, 2015 

Mr. James T. Brown (Email: James.T.Brown@faa.gov) 

Finance Management 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue SW 

Washington, DC 20591 

Subject: Action Plan Submission Pursuant to FAA Policy and Procedures Concerning the Use of Airport 

Revenue (79 Fed. Reg. 66282-01, November 7, 2014). 

Dear Mr. Brown: 

This letter is in response to the request for an action plan for the City of Tehachapi to convey its intent to 

comply with the FAA ruling related to sales tax revenues derived from aviation fuel sales to the extent 

that ruling complies with federal law. This includes the process likely necessary to amend any noncompliant local ordinances to achieve compliance and the development of reporting requirements and 

tracking systems for specific information on aviation fuel tax revenues which in California means "jet fuel" 

as other types of aviation fuels are exempt from sales tax in this state. It is our understanding that the 

State of California will be submitting an action that pertains only to the state's portion of the tax. 

California's state and local governments already provide extensive services to airports including 

infrastructure maintenance, fire protection, public safety, environmental protection and noise 

abatement. These services and improvements are funded with general sales taxes and other taxes and 

the City of Tehachapi believes these local expenditures exceed the sales tax revenues derived from the 

sale of aviation fuel. 

Reporting Requirement and Tracking System 

The City of Tehachapi has begun to identify the required data and steps necessary to comply. The internal 

process to undertake this effort, including developing a tracking system for discrete information on 

aviation fuel tax revenues generated from the Tehachapi Airport, is in the study. 

Transition Period 

If, contrary to current expectations, the City of Tehachapi determines that its expenditures on airport 

capital and operating costs do not exceed sales tax revenues derived from aviation fuel, it will consider 

legislative solutions. It is the intent of City of Tehachapi to attempt to comply with the requirements set 

forth by the FAA ruling, to the extent it complies with federal law. The City of Tehachapi will notify the 

FAA of specific actions, if any, to be completed during the transition period and work with the state to 

ensure compliance before the December 8, 2017 deadline. 

cc: Susan Wiggins, Kim Nixon, Phil Smith, Ed Grimes, Dennis Wahlstrom, Jean Fuller, Greg Garrett, Jon 

Curry, Ashley Whitmore, Jay Chamberlain, Department of Finance (Jay.Chamberlain@dof.ca.gov) 

115 South Robinson Street I Tehachapi, California 93561-1722 

(661) 822-2200 I Fax: (661) 822-8559 

www.tehachapicityhall.com
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

JOHN HESS,

 Appellant,

v.

DONNA JOHNSON,

 Appellee. 

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-10-00217-CV

Appeal from

37th District Court

of Bexar County, Texas

(TC # 2006-CI-06893)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pending before the Court is Appellee Donna Johnson’s motion to dismiss for want of

prosecution. We grant the motion and dismiss the appeal.

The trial court dismissed the underlying case for want of prosecution on December 8, 2009. 

On January 11, 2010, Hess filed a motion for new trial which included notice of appeal. The trial

court subsequently overruled Hess’s motion for new trial. On July 1, 2010, the Fourth Court of

Appeals requested that Hess pay the appellate filing fee in the amount of $175.00 and advised him

that the appeal could be dismissed if he failed to do so. On that same date, Johnson filed her motion

to dismiss for want of prosecution in the Fourth Court of Appeals on the grounds that Hess had not

paid the filing fee and he had not taken the steps required to ensure that the clerk’s record or

reporter’s record would be filed. See TEX.R.APP.P. 34.6(b), 37.3(b), and 37.3(c). Hess did not pay 1

the filing fee or file any response to the motion to dismiss. On July 22, 2010, this Court sent a

This case was transferred from the Fourth Court of Appeals to the Eighth Court of Appeals pursuant to a

1

docket equalization order issued by the Supreme Court of Texas. See TEX.GOV’T CODE ANN. § 73.001 (Vernon 2005).
second request for the filing fee and warned Hess that failure to pay the filing fee could result in

dismissal of the appeal. Hess did not pay the filing fee or otherwise communicate with the Court

about the appeal. Further, Hess has done nothing to prosecute the appeal since filing his motion for

new trial and notice of appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal pursuant to Texas Rules of

Appellate Procedure 5, 42.3(b), and 42.3(c).

September 29, 2010 

ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, Justice

Before Chew, C.J., McClure, and Rivera, JJ.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-6265

JASPER NAPOLEON BUCHANAN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

WILLIAM D. CATOE, Director of SCDC; CALVIN

ANTHONY, Warden,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Solomon Blatt, Jr., Senior District

Judge. (CA-99-4061-0-8BD)

Submitted: May 11, 2000 Decided: May 18, 2000

Before MURNAGHAN, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jasper Napoleon Buchanan, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* Although the district court’s order is marked as “filed” on

February 9, 2000, the district court’s records show that it was

entered on the docket sheet on February 11, 2000. Pursuant to

Rules 58 and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is

the date the order was entered on the docket sheet that we take as

the effective date of the district court’s decision. See Wilson v.

Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986).

2

PER CURIAM:

Jasper Napoleon Buchanan, a South Carolina inmate, appeals the

district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983

(West Supp. 1999) complaint under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915(g) (West Supp.

1999). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s

opinion accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and find

that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal

on the reasoning of the district court. See Buchanan v. Catoe, No.

CA-99-4061-0-8BD (D.S.C. Feb. 11, 2000).* We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
AFS-15-288-E

March 11, 2015

 Exemption No. 11207

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2015-0006

Mr. Aaron A. Goerlich

Counsel for Aerodynamics Incorporated, Inc.

Garofalo, Goerlich, Hainback PC

1200 New Hampshire Avenue, NW., Suite 800

Washington, DC 20036-6802

Dear Mr. Goerlich:

This letter is to inform you that we have denied your request for exemption. It transmits our 

decision, explains its basis, and gives you the conditions and limitations of the exemption, 

including the date it ends.

The Basis of Our Decision

On December 31, 2014, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf 

of Aerodynamics Incorporated, Inc. (Aerodynamics), for an exemption from 

§ 121.434(c)(1)(ii) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) to the extent necessary 

to allow Aerodynamics to substitute a qualified and authorized check airman or aircrew 

program designee for an FAA inspector to observe a qualifying pilot in command (PIC) who 

is completing initial or upgrade training specified in § 121.424 during at least one flight leg 

that includes a takeoff and a landing. 

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition 

in the Federal Register because the requested exemption would not set a precedent, and any 

delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Aerodynamics.

The FAA issued a denial of exemption in circumstances similar in all material respects to 

those presented in your petition. In Denial of Exemption No. 10430 (copy enclosed), the 
2

FAA found that a grant of exemption would not be in the public interest and would not 

provide a level of safety equivalent to the rule.

Having reviewed your reasons for requesting an exemption, I find that—

• they do not differ materially from those presented by the petitioner in the enclosed Denial

of Exemption No. 10430;

• the reasons stated by the FAA for denying the enclosed Denial of Exemption No. 10430

also apply to the situation you present; and 

• a grant of exemption would not be in the public interest.

Our Decision

Under the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. §§ 106(f), 40113, and 44701, which the FAA 

Administrator has delegated to me, I hereby deny the petition of Aerodynamics, Incorporated

for an exemption from 14 CFR § 121.434(c)(1)(ii).

Sincerely,

/s/

John Barbagallo

Acting Deputy Director, Flight Standards Service
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 02-2785

___________

George Brown, Jr., *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Western

* District of Missouri.

Gary Kempker, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellee. *

___________

 Submitted: November 4, 2002

 Filed: December 24, 2002

___________

Before WOLLMAN, MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, and MELLOY, Circuit

Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Missouri inmate George Brown, Jr., appeals the district court’s pre-service

dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 lawsuit. Mr. Brown also moves for in forma

pauperis (IFP) status on appeal. The district court found that Mr. Brown’s appeal was

not taken in good faith but ordered deductions from his prisoner account to pay the

appellate filing fee in installments; thus, we deny Mr. Brown’s motion as moot. See

Henderson v. Norris, 129 F.3d 481, 484 (8th Cir. 1997) (per curiam) (Fed. R. App.

P. 24(a)(5) motion to proceed IFP on appeal triggers appellant’s responsibility to pay

full appellate filing fee by installment method). 
-2-

Mr. Brown alleged that Gary Kempker, Director of the Missouri Department

of Corrections (MDOC), was deducting from his institutional offender account all of

his monthly income for outstanding state debts and, contrary to MDOC policy, was

not leaving him a balance of at least $7.50. He claimed that this practice was cruel

and unusual punishment, that it violated the Equal Protection Clause, and that the

deductions were being made in retaliation for his filing lawsuits. 

Having carefully reviewed the record, we conclude dismissal of Mr. Brown’s

equal protection and Eighth Amendment claims was proper. Mr. Brown did not

allege that he belongs to a suspect class, or that any other inmate owed as much in

state court costs (for which prisoner account deductions were authorized). Thus, he

failed to state an equal protection claim. See Village of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528

U.S. 562, 564 (2000) (per curiam) (to proceed with equal protection claim, plaintiff

who is not member of suspect class must allege that he “has been intentionally treated

differently from others similarly situated and that there is no rational basis for the

difference in treatment”). Mr. Brown also failed to state an Eighth Amendment

claim: although he asserted that he was unable to purchase “necessities,” he did not

allege that prison officials had denied any request from him for those necessities. Cf.

Scott v. Carpenter, 24 Fed. App. 645, 648 (8th Cir. 2001) (unpublished per curiam)

(prisoners can be expected to bear some responsibility for their own hygiene, and

officials did not deprive disabled prisoner of his basic needs where he rarely

requested showers or warm water for sponge baths). 

We believe that Mr. Brown sufficiently stated a retaliation claim, however, and

that this claim warrants remand for service of process. Accordingly, we affirm in part

and remand for further proceedings on the retaliation claim. See 8th Cir. R. 47A(a).
-3-

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
RECEIVEDJN192011EPA.REGIONIII:JewestvirginiadepartmentofenvironmentalprotectionDivisionofAirQualityEarlRayTomblin,Governor60157tSTSERandyC.Huffman,CabinetSecretaryCharleston,WV25304dep.wv.govJanuary17,2011RECEIVEDMr.ShawnM.Garvin(3RAOO)JAN202011RegionalAdministratorUSEPARegion3VISOflDlrectc,(3APOO)1650ArchStreetPhiladelphia,PA19103-2029RE:WestVirginiaAreaDesignationsUndertheJanuary2010NitrogenDioxideNAAQSDearAdministratorGarvin:InaletterdatedNovember12,2010tothen-GovernorJoeManchin,youadvisedthatinitialstatedesignationsundertheJanuary2010NitrogenDioxide(NO2)NationalAmbientAirQualityStandards(NAAQS)wererequiredbyJanuary25,2011.Amongotherthings,youindicatedthat:Weanticipatedesignatingmostareasinthecountryas“unclassifiable,”indicatingthatthereareinsufficientdatatodeterminewhetherornottheareaisattainingtherevisedNO2NAAQS.Likemanystates,WestVirginiahasverylimiteddataonNO2concentrationswithinourborders.Moreover,thenewmonitoringnetworkanticipatedbyEPAwillnotberequiredinourstatebecausethenearroadsitingcriteriaarenottriggeredbyeitherpopulationorvehicularactivity.Notwithstandingtheabove,wehavereviewedthemostrecentavailabledataintwoareaswithhighpopulationandsignificantindustrialdevelopment,CharlestonandWeirton.Theavailabledatawasobtainedfromtheperiod1996-1998whenbothareashadhigherindustrialactivitythanpresent.Levelsatbothlocationswereroughlyonlyone-halfofthenew,morestringent1-hr.NO2standard(i.e.55%and54%ofthestandardforCharlestonandWeirton,respectively).Therefore,giventhedeclineinindustrialactivityandtheadditionofNOxcontrolsundertheNOxSIPCallandCleanAirInterstateRule(CAIR),itappearsreasonabletoconcludethatNO2concentrationswouldbewellbelowtheNAAQSthroughoutthestate.Therefore,wearedesignatingtheentireStateofWestVirginiaas“Unclassifiable/Attainment”forNO2.Sincerely,RandyHuffrftnCabinetSecretaryRECE’1EDcc:DianaEsher(3APOO)JAN202011JohnBenedict3/3QPromotingahealthyenvironment.StateofWestVirginiaCEIVED2010NitrogenDioxideNationalAmbientAirQualityStandardsPreliminaryAreaDesignationsIAN192011January2011EPA.REGIONIllWESTVIRGTNIA.—NitrogenDioxide(NO2)OFREGIONALADMIN1ST)DesignatedareaDesignationTypeStatewide•Unclassifiable/Attainment.BarbourBerkeleyBooneBraxtonBrookeCabellCalhounClayDoddridgeFayetteGilmerGrantGreenbrierHampshireHancockHardyHarrisonJacksonJeffersonKanawhaLewisLincolnLoganMarionMarshallMasonMcDowellMercerMineralMingoMonongaliaMonroeMorganNicholasOhioPendletonPleasantsPocahaontasPrestonPutnamRaleighRandolphRitchieRoaneSummersTaylorTuckerTylerUpshurWayneWebsterWetzelWirtWoodWyoming
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 

Home404

# Page not found

Sorry, the page you're looking for can't be found. The page may have been removed, changed its name, or is otherwise unavilable at the moment.

Please use the navigation menu or search bar above to locate the resources you need, or reach out to the Defense Logistics Agency's Customer Interaction Center if you need immediate assistance.

                      - Contact Us
                      - Site Index
                      - Strategic Plan
                      - DLA IG Hotline
                      - FOIA
                      - No FEAR Act
                      - Whistleblower Protection
                      - DLA Careers
                      - Images
                      - Webmaster
                      - EEO
                      - Section 508
                      - Public Affairs
                      - SAPR
                      - External Links Disclaimer
                      - DOD Information Quality Guidelines
                      - Privacy/Security
                      - USA.gov
                      - DOD Web Policy
                      - DOD Open Government
                      - Plain Language

### Stay Connected

Hosted by Defense Media Activity - WEB.mil
Exhibit 32.1  SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION  In connection with the quarterly report of Aristocrat Group Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended October 31, 2018 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Sydney Jim, President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. SS. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 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; and2.The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.   Date: December 17, 2018BY: /s/ Sydney JimSydney JimPresident, Secretary, Treasurer, Principal Executive Officer,
Principal Financial and Accounting Officer and Sole Director  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 32 (Thursday, February 16, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 9229]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-3631]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13-023]


Green Island Power Authority; Notice of Meeting and 
Teleconference

    a. Date and Time of Meeting: Wednesday March 21, 2012, beginning at 
10 a.m. EST.
    b. Place: Commission Headquarters, 888 First Street NE., 
Washington, DC 20426, Room 62-26.
    c. FERC Contact: Tom Dean, (202) 502-6041.
    d. Purpose of Meeting: To discuss authorizations and approvals that 
may be needed for, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' (Corps) 
position on, proposed modifications to the facilities and operation of 
the Corps' Green Island Lock and Dam (see attached agenda for complete 
list of topics).
    e. All local, state, and federal agencies, Indian tribes, and other 
interested parties are invited to participate either in person or by 
phone. Please call Tom Dean at (202) 502-6041 by Wednesday, March 14, 
2012, to receive specific instructions on how to participate.
    f. FERC conferences are accessible under section 508 of the 
Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations please 
send an email to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#7b1a18181e080812191217120f023b1d1e0918551c140d"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="7a1b19191f090913181316130e033a1c1f0819541d150c">[email protected]</span></a> or call toll free (866) 208-
3372 (voice) or 202-502-8659 (TTY), or send a FAX to 202-208-2106 with 
the required accommodations.
    g. A summary of the teleconference will be placed in the public 
record for the project.

    Dated: February 10, 2012.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-3631 Filed 2-15-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 17

- 00341

- CR

Michael Lopez

v.

The State of Texas §

§

§

§

§ From Criminal District Court No. 3

of Tarrant County (1490785D)

July 5, 2018

Opinion by Chief J ustice Sudderth

(nfp)



### JUDGMENT

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

there was error in the trial court’s judgment s . The judgment s are modified to

reflect that Lopez was acquitted on the first count of aggravated a ssault with a

deadly weapon and that there is only one ten

- year sentence for his conviction on

count two. It is ordered that the judgment s of the trial court are affirmed as

modified.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By /s/ Bonnie Sudderth

C hief Justice Bonnie Sudderth