alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
JULIE OETTINGER

MANAGING DIRECTOR–INTERNATIONAL & REGULATORY AFFAIRS

(202) 296-2370 

(202) 296-2869 FAX

JULIE.OETTINGER@UNITED.COM

January 28, 2010 

Ms. Renee V. Wright 

Program Manager, Dockets Operations 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Room W 12-140 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

Re: Joint Application and Notice of United Air Lines, Inc.

and Brussels Airlines N.V./S,A. 

Dockets DOT-OST-2010-0024 and DOT-OST-2004-19148 

Dear Ms. Wright: 

 Enclosed for submission in the above-referenced dockets are redacted copies of 

agreements relating to the code-share arrangement between United and Brussels Airlines. 

Respectfully submitted, 

 JULIE OETTINGER 

Managing Director – International & 

Regulatory Affairs 

UNITED AIR LINES, INC. 

cc: Esta Rosenberg and George Wellington 

 Service List – Those interested in receiving copies of the agreements should contact 

Annalei Avanceña (Phone 312/997-8349) 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that I have this date served a copy of the foregoing document on all persons 

named below by causing a copy to be sent via email. 

byerlyjr@state.gov

carl.nelson@aa.com

donna.kooperstein@usdoj.gov

dwight.moore@ustranscom.mil

hkamen@coair.com

howard_kass@usairways.com

jhill@dowlohnes.com

jim.ballough@faa.gov

john.allen@faa.gov 

msinick@ssd.com

sascha.vanderbellen@delta.com 

esahr@eckertseamans.com

 

Annalei Avanceña 

Advisor—Regulatory Affairs 

DATED: January 28, 2010
EXHIBIT 32.2

                            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 Keewatin Windpower Corp. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended November 30, 2006 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby
certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:

     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.

Date: January 26, 2007


/s/ Chris Craddock
-------------------------------------------
Chris Craddock, Principal Financial Officer
SEAN P. DUFFY 

7TH DISTRICT, WISCONSIN 

Congress of the United States 

House of Representatives 

COMMITTEE ON 

FINANCIAL SERVICES 

SU!lCOMMITrEES, 

FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS AND 

CONSUMER CREDIT 

INSURANCE, HOUSING AND 

COMMUNITY OPPORTUNITY 

JOINT ECONOMIC 

COMMITTEE 

August 16, 2012 D c r- o s r- :J. a I I - o f o '7 

Mr. Dennis DeVany, Chief 

US Department of Transportation 

Essential Air Service Division 

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

Dear Mr. DeVany: 

'. __ , 

I am writing to you today in support of the request made by Mr. Robert G. Heck, Chairman of 

the Rhinelander-Oneida County Airport Commission, to award the Essential Air Service (EAS) 

Contract for Rhinelander-Oneida County Airport (RHI) to SkyW est Airlines. 

In reviewing Mr. Heck's letter to you dated July 31, 2012, I agree that all carriers that made a 

proposal for service do bring significant contributions when proposing to serve the Rhinelander 

Market. However, it is clear that when taking SkyWest's proposal into account, the services 

provided by SkyW est will best meet the needs of passengers at RHI, while at the same time 

achieve the mission of the EAS program in the most efficient manner possible. 

Should you have any questions or require additional information, please do not hesitate to 

contact my Outreach Director, Kevin Jenkins, at (715) 298-9344 or by e-mail at 

kevin. j enkins@mail.house. gov. 

Once again, I am pleased to support the request of RHI for the award of an EAS contract to 

SkyW est Airlines. 

SPD/kj 

208 GRAND AVENUE 

WAUSAU, W1 54403 

PH, (715) 298-9344 • fAJC (715) 298-9348 

Sincerely, 

Sean 

Member of Congress 

WASHINGTON OFFICE 

1208 LONGWORTH HOl'SE OFFICE BGILDING 

WASHINGTON, DC 20515-4907 

PH: (202) 225-3365 • fAX, (202) 225-3240 

Ton-FREE' 1-855-585-4251 

INTERNET' duffy.house.gov 

SUPERIOR 

823 BELKNAP STREET, SUITE 102 

SUPERIOR, WI 54880 

PH, (715) 392-3984 • FA.x, (715) 392-3999
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1811 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1811

    To suspend temporarily the duty on certain chime rod assemblies.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 20, 2009

   Mr. Levin introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To suspend temporarily the duty on certain chime rod assemblies.

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

SECTION 1. CHIME ROD ASSEMBLIES.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``      9902.01.00       Chime rod           Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/ ''.
                          assemblies for                                                     31/2011.......
                          clocks (provided
                          for in subheading
                          9114.90.50)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### In the Matter of Trudy Silane, Also Known as Trudy Hecht, Appellant, v John Silane, Respondent.

In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4 for a downward modification of the child support provisions of a judgment of divorce, the petitioner former wife appeals from an order of the Family Court, Nassau County (Mosca, J.), dated July 7, 1989, which sustained the respondent former husband’s objections to an order of the same court (Bannon, H.E.), dated April 17, 1989, and reduced the respondent’s child support obligation under the judgment from $300 to $200 per week, with a retroactive credit of $2,500.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the respondent’s objections to the Hearing Examiner’s order are denied, and the order dated April 17, 1989, is confirmed.

The parties were divorced pursuant to a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Roncallo, J.), entered October 31, 1988. Pursuant to the terms of the judgment, the respondent former husband was directed to pay to the petitioner former wife the sum of $300 per week for the support of the parties’ two children. The divorce judgment was predicated upon the parties’ stipulation of settlement, entered into on September 8, 1988. The stipulation was incorporated by reference but not merged in the judgment. The judgment provided that the Supreme Court and Family Court would retain concurrent jurisdiction for the purpose of enforcing the stipulation and making further orders with respect to maintenance, custody, support or visitation as either court deemed appropriate.

Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, the Family Court was clearly within its jurisdiction in modifying the terms of the child support provisions of the judgment of divorce. The instant case does not involve any attempt to set aside the terms of the underlying separation agreement *(cf., Matter of Boden v Boden,*42 NY2d 210; *Matter of Zamjohn v Zamjohn,*158 AD2d 895; Voss *v Voss,*132 AD2d 545).

However, there is absolutely no basis in the record to warrant a downward modification of the support provisions of the judgment of divorce. Under the circumstances, the Family Court improperly sustained the respondent’s objections to the Hearing Examiner’s determination and erred in reducing the former husband’s child support obligation under the judgment *709from $300 to $200 per week. Mangano, P. J., Bracken, Kunzeman and Hooper, JJ., concur.
# C_2006311EN.01001001.xml

| 19.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 311/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 311/10

---

COUNCIL DECISION

COUNCIL DECISION

of 4 December 2006

amending the Decision of 27 March 2000 authorising the Director of Europol to enter into negotiations on agreements with third States and non-EU related bodies

(2006/C 311/02)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to Article 42(2), Article 10(4) and Article 18 of the Convention on the establishment of a European Police Office (Europol Convention) (1),

1

Having regard to the Council Act of 3 November 1998 laying down rules governing Europol's external relations with third States and non-European Union related bodies (2), and in particular Article 2 of that Act,

2

Having regard to the Council Act of 3 November 1998 laying down rules governing the receipt of information by Europol from third parties (3), and in particular Article 2 of that Act,

3

Having regard to the Council Act of 12 March 1999 adopting the rules governing the transmission of personal data by Europol to third States and third bodies (4), and in particular Articles 2 and 3 of that Act,

4

Whereas:

| (1) | Operational requirements and the need to combat in an effective way organised forms of criminality through Europol, require that China and Liechtenstein be added to the list of third States with whom the Director of Europol is authorised to start negotiations. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Operational requirements and the need to combat in an effective way organised forms of criminality through Europol, require that China and Liechtenstein be added to the list of third States with whom the Director of Europol is authorised to start negotiations.

| (2) | Council Decision of 27 March 2000 (5) should therefore be amended, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Council Decision of 27 March 2000 (5) should therefore be amended,

5

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

Council Decision of 27 March 2000 is hereby amended as follows:

in Article 2(1), under the heading ‘Third States’, the following States shall be added to the alphabetical list:

| ‘— | China’; |
| --- | --- |

‘—

China’;

and

| ‘— | Liechtenstein’. |
| --- | --- |

‘—

Liechtenstein’.

Article 2

This Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Official Journal of the European Union

Article 3

This Decision shall enter into force on the day following that of its adoption.

Done at Brussels, 4 December 2006.

For the Council

The President

L. LUHTANEN

---

(1)  OJ C 316, 27.11.1995, p. 2.

1

(2)  OJ C 26, 30.1.1999, p. 19.

2

(3)  OJ C 26, 30.1.1999, p. 17.

3

(4)  OJ C 88, 30.3.1999, p. 1.

4

(5)  OJ C 106, 13.4.2000, p. 1. Decision as last amended by Decision 2005/169/EC (OJ L 56, 2.3.2005, p. 14).

5

---
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 19

- 1390

_____________________________
B ETTY C AITLIN N ICOLE S MITH ,
Petitioner
,

v.

Z ACHARY T AYLOR D ANIEL , Respondent

.

_____________________________

Petition for Writ of Mandamus

— Original Jurisdiction

.

May 6, 2019

P ER C URIAM

. Petitioner’s Motion to Vacate Order for Fraud Upon the Court on Grounds of Rule 60 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and Emergency Time Sensitive Motion for Stay of Fraudulent Order, filed on April 4, 2019, and transferred to this Court for consideration o n April 15, 2019, are denied. All other requests for relief are denied.

W OLF , K ELSEY , and W INOKUR , JJ., concur

.2 _____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_________ ____________________

Betty Caitlin Nicole Smith, pro se
, Petitioner

. Zachary Taylor Daniel, pro se
, Respondent

.
U NITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION 10

1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900

Seattle, WA 98101

- 3140

OFFICE OF

AIR, WASTE AND TOXICS

March 21 , 2012

Subject: Q/d Analysis of BART Sources in Idaho, Oregon and Washington to Establish A

Threshold for Estimating Visibility Impacts from non

- BART Sources

From: Keith Rose

, Environmental Scientist

To: File

Using information in EPA’s National Emission Inventory Database, specifically the total annual

emission rates (Q) , and distance in kilometers (d) to the nearest Class I area, I compared the

visibility impairment in deci views (dv) determined by CALPUFF modeling for 19 BART

sources in Idaho, Oregon

, and Washington to the Q/d values for these sources. The results,

shown in the attached table , show that all BART sources with a Q/d value s of less than 26. 1 dv

had a vis ibility impact of less than 0.5 dv on any Class I area , with an average im p act of 0.32 dv.

EPA has conservatively interpreted these results as indicating that non

- BART sources in the

region with Q/d values of less than 20, would likely have visibility imp acts less than 0.5 dv in the

nearest Class I area.
EXHIBIT 3

Deloitte & Touche LLP
181 Bay Street
Suite 1400
Toronto, ON M5J 2V1
Canada

Tel:
(416) 601-6150
Fax: (416) 601-6151www.deloitte.ca

Deloitte  
& Touche

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We
consent to the use of our report dated February 4, 2004, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 40-F of Falconbridge Limited for the year ended December 31, 1003.
We also hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of our report February 4, 2004 in the registration statement on form F-9 (file no. 333-111485) of
Falconbridge Limited.

(Signed)
DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Toronto,
Ontario
May 17, 2004

---



QuickLinks
# L_2007080EN.01001501.xml

| 21.3.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 80/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.3.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 80/15

---

Corrigendum to Council Directive 2006/105/EC of 20 November 2006 adapting Directives 73/239/EEC, 74/557/EEC and 2002/83/EC in the field of environment, by reason of the accession of Bulgaria and Romania

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 363 of 20 December 2006
  )

On page 368, title:

for:

‘Council Directive 2006/105/EC of 20 November 2006 adapting Directives 73/239/EEC, 74/557/EEC and 2002/83/EC in the field of environment, by reason of the accession of Bulgaria and Romania’;

read:

‘Council Directive 2006/105/EC of 20 November 2006 adapting Directives 79/409/EEC, 92/43/EEC, 97/68/EC, 2001/80/EC and 2001/81/EC in the field of environment, by reason of the accession of Bulgaria and Romania’.

---
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 9 (Friday, January 13, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 2063]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-555]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding 
Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for 
approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 
1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR part 225), and all other 
applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company 
and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the 
power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the 
banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, 
including the companies listed below.
    The applications listed below, as well as other related filings 
required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the 
Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The application also will be available 
for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested 
persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated 
in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the 
acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether 
the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards 
in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, 
nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these 
applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the 
offices of the Board of Governors not later than February 10, 2012.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia (William Lang, Senior Vice 
President) 100 North 6th Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19105-1521:
    1. Liberty Bell Bancorp, Inc., Marlton, New Jersey, to become a 
bank holding company by acquiring 100 percent of the voting shares of 
Liberty Bell Bank, Marlton, New Jersey.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, January 10, 
2012.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2012-555 Filed 1-12-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
Exhibit
32.1





Certification
of Principal Executive Officer


Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. § 1350,


As
Adopted Pursuant to


Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Reef Global Energy VI, L.P. (the
“Partnership”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2010 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
Michael J. Mauceli, principal executive officer of the Partnership, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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;
and





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





Date:  August
13, 2010


/s/
      Michael J. MauceliMichael
      J. MauceliManager
      and Member of Reef Oil & Gas Partners,
                        GP,
      LLC, the manager of Reef Oil & Gas Partners,
                        L.P.,
      the Managing General Partner of the
                        Partnership(Principal
      Executive
Officer)





This
certification accompanies the Report pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, be deemed filed by the Partnership for purposes of § 18 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.





A signed
original of this written statement has been provided to the Partnership and will
be retained by the Partnership and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Marilyn Kell y Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Mary Beth Kell y Brian K. Zahra,
Justices

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 September 16, 2011

d0914 

# Order

September 16, 2011

143098 & (44)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 143098 COA: 299790 Midland CC: 10-004389-FH LEWIS CLIFTON HENDERSON, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Chief Justice, a sti pulation signed by counsel for the parties agreeing to the dismissal of this application for leave to appeal is considered, and the application for leave to appeal is DISMISSED with prejudice and without costs.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Dwight Luck, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Chemung County (Castellino, J.), rendered May 18, 1990, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crime of promoting prison contraband in the first degree.

Contrary to defendant’s contention, the evidence produced at trial was sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt every element of the crime charged *(see, People v Bracey,*41 NY2d 296; *People v Craft,*101 AD2d 984). Correction Officer Michael Hollenbeck testified that he saw defendant drop a metal weapon or "shank” on the floor after defendant looked in the direction where other correction officers were frisking inmates. Hollenbeck also testified that he never lost sight of the weapon from the time he observed defendant drop it until he himself picked it up. To the extent that there were competing inferences to be drawn, they were for the fact-finder to resolve *(see, People v Barnes,*50 NY2d 375, 381). We also reject as lacking in merit defendant’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel *(see, People v Baldi,*54 NY2d 137).

Judgment affirmed. Casey, J. P., Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., Mercure and Crew III, JJ., concur.
#### In re Estate of Rollins. Snyder, Admr., Appellee, *v.*Rollins et al., Appellants.

(Nos. 31133 and 31134

Decided October 15, 1947.)

*Messrs. Schweid, Snyder, Torbet & Zucker,*for appellee.

*Messrs. Martin & Martin,*for appellants.

It is ordered and decreed that this appeal as of right be, and the same hereby is, dismissed for the reason that no debatable constitutional question is involved.- ,

*Appeal dismi^ed.*

Weygandt, C. J., Turner, Matthias, Hart, Sohngen and Stewart, JJ., concur.

Zimmerman, J., not participating. ■
# Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas

September 9, 2022

No. 04

- 21

- 00387

- CV

Donald W. TAYLOR

, Appellant

v.

Clark ASPY , Madison Preston and Naman Howell Smith & Lee, PLL, Appellees

From the 216th Judicial District Court

, Gillespie County, Texas

Trial Court No. 16670
Honorable N. Keith Williams , Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

After this court struck appellant’s original brief because it did not comply with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.1 and after being granted several extensions, appellant filed his

pro se brief on July 25, 2022 . Appellee s filed their brief on August 18, 202 2. Any reply brief appellant wish ed to file wa s due on September 7, 2022

On September 2, 2022, appellant filed a motion requesting a forty

- five

- d ay extension of

time to (1) file a reply brief, (2) file an amended appellant’s brief, and (3) amend and/or increase

his word count. The motion is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.

A ppellant is ORDERED to file his reply brief no later than September 27, 2022

. Appellant’s request to file an amended appellant’s brief and amend and/or increase the word

count is DENIED.

_________________________________ Irene Rios , JusticeIN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 9th day of September, 2022

.

___________________________________ M ichael A. C ruz , Clerk of Court