alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
C,\^^ O^ V/^'-^-^^^^yM^^^-^ 

CITY AND BOROUGH OF WRANGELL 

INCORPORATED MAY 30,2008 

P.O. BOX 531 (907)-874-2381 

WrangelUK 99929 FAX [907)-874-3952 ' • 

January 17, 2011 - O S P 

'H'—' ^ The Honorable Ray LaHood, Secretary i^, >:^S—^ 

US Department of Transportation 1-. o^ ^ 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. •• :?^ " 

Washington, DC 20590 " ^ '•" 

RE: Continuation of Alasl<a Airlines' Essential Air Service at Cordova. Gustavas, Petersburg. 

Wranaell. and Yakutat. Alaska Docket OST-1998-4899 

Dear Secretary LaHood, 

This letter is to express strong support for the selection of Alaska Airlines to continue to provide 

essential air service to our community - Wrangell, AK. 

Alaska Airlines' current pattern of service - utilizing jet aircraft - meets crucial needs that would 

be difficult, if not impossible, to meet with any other type of service or aircraft type. 

Alaska Airlines' service connects Southeast Alaska passengers to one or more major 

communities of interest, with single phase service to Anchorage, Juneau, Ketchikan, or Seattle. 

From these hubs, our community can access the airline's extensive route system and benefit 

from its marketing relationships with other carriers. The 737-400 combination ("combi") 

passenger and cargo aircraft, which Alaska Airlines proposes to continue using on this route, 

provides freight, mail, and cargo capacity that a non-jet carrier simply cannot provide. Further, 

the 737-400 combi aircraft is equipped with Required Navigation performance Technology 

precision technology, which enables the airline to reliably access the airport during inclement 

weather, thus reducing diversions and cancellations and, in turn, enabling people and products 

to dependably reach the community. In sum, Alaska's jet service is critical to the economic well 

being of not only our community, but the entire region. 

For these reasons, we respectfully urge the Department of Transportation to select Alaska 

Airlines to continue to provide essential air service to Southeast Alaska, as the airline has 

successfully done for more than thirty years. 

Sincerely 

Timothy D. 

Borough Ma\ 

Cc: Ms. Susan Kurland, Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs 

Mr. Dennis DeVany. Chief, EAS and Domestic Analysis 

The Honorable Sean Parnell, Governor, State of Alaska 

Mr. Mark A. Luiken, Commissioner, Alaska Department of Transportation and Public 

Facilities 

Mayor and Borough Assembly, City and Borough of Wrangell
AIRCRAFT

PHANTOM 3

LIVE HD VIEW (TABLET OR SMARTPHONE)

COMPLETE CONTROL

The Phantom 3 can be set to fly only within a given

distance and altitude from you, protecting your Phantom and making it automatically stay inside your desired 

limits. This invisible, GPS-enabled “geofence” prevents you from accidentally flying into unwanted areas or 

obstacles, and helps you enjoy flying while learning at the same time.

VISION POSITIONING

Fly indoors, low to the ground, and in GPS-free areas with Vision Positioning technology. Visual and 

ultrasonic sensors scan the ground beneath your Phantom 3 for patterns, enabling it to identify its position 

and move accurately.

EASY TO FLY

Your Phantom 3 fits into your life and makes flying remarkably intuitive and ea sy. From takeoff to 

landing, it's completely under your control, responding to your commands while automatically handling 

the most complex aspects of safe, stable flight.
WORRY-FREE AUTOPILOT

Automatic elements of your Phantom 3’s intelligent flight

system help you fly and are available at the touch of a button.

AUTO-TAKEOFF

With one tap in the DJI Pilot app, your Phantom 3 will turn on its motors and rise to a pre-set height. It 

will then hover perfectly in place until you direct it where to go.

AUTO-RETURN HOME

When GPS is available, your Phantom 3 remembers the exact spot that it took off from. Wherever your 

aircraft is flying, tap a button to have it return right back home.

FAILSAFE

If the Intelligent Flight Battery is running low, or if your Phantom 3 loses the connection with your 

remote controller for any reason, the aircraft will automatically return to the takeoff point and land safely.

UNMATCHED PROPULSION

Each motor has the power and precision needed to give you the best flight experience possible. Brushless 

motors work with lightning-fast ESCs to make your Phantom 3 fast, agile, and responsive. These 

powerful motors give you the ability to speed up, quickly increase or decrease altitude, and stop 

immediately. DJI’s powerful air braking mechanisms stop your Phantom 3 make it hover in place as soon 

as you release the control sticks. Aerodynamic self-tightening propellers boost thrust and stay firmly in 

place no matter how you fly.

SPECIFICATIONS:

Weight (Including Battery And Propellers)

1280 g

Diagonal Size (Including Propellers)

590 mm

Max Ascent Speed

5 m/s

Max Descent Speed

3 m/s
Hover Accuracy

 Vertical: +/- 0.1 m (when Vision Positioning is active) or +/- 0.5 m

 Horizontal: +/- 1.5 m

Max Speed

16 m/s (ATTI mode, no wind)

Max Altitude Above Sea Level

6000 m

Operating Temperature

0°C to 40°C

GPS Mode

GPS/GLONASS

REMOTE CONTROLLER

Operating Frequency 2.400 GHz-2.483 

GHzMax Distance 2000m (outdoors and unobstructed)

Video Output Port USB

Operating Temperature 0°C- 40°C

Battery 6000 mAh LiPo 2S

Mobile Device Holder

For tablet or phone

Receiver Sensitivity (1%PER)

-101 dBm ±2 dBm

Transmitter Power (EIRP)

 FCC: 20 dBm

 CE: 16 dBm

Working Voltage

1.2 A @7.4 V
Order entered August 15 , 2022

In The



### Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 22

- 00153

- CV

IN RE FIVE STAR GLOBAL, LLC

, Relator

Original Proceeding from the 68th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC

- 20

- 08643

ORDER

Before Justices Molberg, Pedersen III , and Garcia

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we CONDITIONALLY GRANT

relator’s petition for writ of mandamus. We ORDER the trial judge, the Honorable

Martin Hoffman, (1) to vacate his February 18, 2022 order granting real parties’

Motion to Strike Jury Demand (the Motion) ; (2) to deny the Motion ; (3) to remove

this ca se from the non

-

jury docket; and (4) to reset this case for jury trial.

We further ORDER the trial judge to file with this Court within fifteen (15)

days of the date of this order , a certified copy of his order issued in compliancewith this order. Should the trial judge fail to comply with this order, the writ will

issue.

/s/ BILL PEDERSEN

JUSTICE
#### Jeanne Dee ENZINNA, Appellant, v. Frank F. ENZINNA, Appellee.

No. 86-2144.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

March 24, 1987.

Lawrence A. France, North Miami Beach, for appellant.

Roger G. Stanway, Hollywood, for appel-lee.

Before HENDRY, HUBBART and NESBITT, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by the former wife from a final order of the circuit court determining, as between appellant and her former husband, certain rights which were in dispute in their dissolution of marriage action.

Upon careful consideration of the record and briefs on appeal, we have concluded that appellant has failed to demonstrate reversible error. The order appealed from is, accordingly, affirmed.

Affirmed.
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 Atlas America Public #15-2005 (A) L.P.
(the “Partnership”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2009 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
I, Matthew A. Jones, Chief Financial Officer of the Partnership, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 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,
and


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





By:
            /s/ Matthew A.
      JonesName:
            Matthew
      A. JonesTitle:
            Chief
      Financial Officer of the Managing General PartnerDate:
            May
      14, 2009
1The Honorable Robert T. Dawson, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendation of the Honorable

Beverly Stites Jones, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of

Arkansas.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 99-3075

___________

Chad Allen Beers, *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

Jimm L. Hendren, Judge; Michael * Western District of Arkansas.

Bradley; Bill Reynolds; John Doe #1; *

John Doe #2, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellees. *

___________

 Submitted: October 6, 1999

 Filed: October 12, 1999

___________

Before BEAM, LOKEN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Chad Allen Beers appeals from the district court’s1 order dismissing his 42

U.S.C. § 1983 action against a federal judge, Mr. Beers’s two defense counsel, and two
-2-

John Does. After careful review of the record, we conclude dismissal was warranted

under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) because Mr. Beers’s allegations failed to state a

conspiracy claim. See Snelling v. Westhoff, 972 F.2d 199, 200 (8th Cir. 1992) (per

curiam) (mere allegations of conspiracy without specific facts showing meeting of

minds do not state claim). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47A(a).

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### National Credit Union Administration

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mary Rupp, Secretary of the Board, Telephone: 703-518-6304

Mary Rupp,

Board Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2012-7090 Filed 3-20-12; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 7535-01-P
Skip to main content (Press Enter).
 News
    
        Photos

    Week in Photos

    Air Force TV

    Commentaries

    Features

    Art

    About Us
    
        Air Force Senior Leaders
    
        SECAF

    CSAF

    CMSAF

    Biographies

    Fact Sheets

    SECAF Reading List

    CSAF Leadership Library
    
        CSAF Leadership Library 2022

    CSAF Leadership Library 2021

    CSAF Reading List Pre-2020 Archive
    
        2018 CSAF Reading List

    2017 CSAF Reading List

    2016 CSAF Reading List

    CSAF Leadership Library 2023

    CMSAF Leadership Library

    50 Years of the CMSAF

    Adjunct Professors

    Air Force Strategic Documents

    Arctic Strategy

    Empowered Airmen

    State Licensure Portability

    Careers

    AF Federal Advisory Committees

    AF 75th Anniversary

    Policy Updates

    AF Content Management

    Contact Us

    AF Sites
    
        Site RegistrationU.S. Air Force LogoAir Force

        Policy UpdatesNewsroomReoptimizationBIOGRAPHIESAF Senior Leaders

    HomeNewsPhotos   Planes over water
        
            AIR FORCE PHOTOS
   Unable to retrieve object  Quick Links
AccessibilityContact UsEqual OpportunityFOIA | Privacy | Section 508Information QualityInspector GeneralJAG Court-Martial DocketLink DisclaimerNo FEAR ActOpen GovernmentOSI Tip LinePlain LanguageQuestionsResilienceRSSSite MapVeterans Crisis LineCareers
Join the Air ForceAir Force BenefitsAir Force CareersAir Force ReserveAir National GuardCivilian ServiceConnect
            Get Social with Us
            
            Official United States Air Force Website
    Hosted by Defense Media Activity - WEB.mil
### IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10

- 15

- 00235

- CR

IN RE MATTHEW ALAN C LENDENNEN

Original Proceeding

ORDER

Matthew Alan Clendennen’s Petition for Writ of Mandamus was filed on July 1,

2015. Now that it appears the various procedural deficiencies have been adequately

resolved, the Court requests a response from the other parties to the proceeding. See

T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 52.8(b). Any response shall be filed with the Clerk of this Court no later

than 14 days from the date of this order

.

PER CURIAM

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Response requested

Order issued and filed July 16, 2015
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Ronnie L. JONES.

No. 88 KA 0875.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.

Dec. 20, 1988.

Bryan Bush, Dist. Atty., Office of the Dist. Atty. by Richard Sherburne, Baton Rouge, for plaintiff-appellee.

Office of the Public Defender by Mike Walsh and Richard Langford, Baton Rouge, for defendant-appellant.

Before CARTER, LANIER, AND LeBLANC, JJ.

CARTER, Judge.

Ronnie L. Jones was charged by bill of information with the armed robbery of Jeffery Magee, in violation of LSA-R.S. 14:64. Defendant pled not guilty. Following trial by jury, defendant was convicted as charged. Thereafter, the state filed a habitual offender bill. Following a hearing, defendant was adjudicated a second felony habitual offender. The trial court sentenced defendant to a seventy-five year term of imprisonment at hard labor, without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence.

Defendant brings this appeal, urging four assignments of error:

> 1. The trial court erred when it allowed the qualification of Mrs. Felter as an expert in the identification of rolled fingerprints.

> 2. The trial court erred when it allowed the introduction into evidence of State Exhibit one, the Pen-pac.

> 3. The trial court erred when it adjudicated defendant as a habitual offender.

> 4. The trial court erred when it imposed an excessive sentence and failed to comply with the sentencing guidelines of LSA-C.Cr.P. art. 894.1.

Assignment of error number one was expressly abandoned by defendant as being without merit.

All of defendant’s briefed assignments of error relate to his adjudication and sentencing as a habitual offender. The transcript of the habitual offender hearing establishes that the prosecution filed certified copies of documentary evidence into the record. However, these exhibits are not included in the record on appeal, despite this Court’s request and order directed to the Clerk of the district court. It can only be assumed that the documents either were not originally made part of the record or were subsequently lost. Since defendant is entitled to judicial review based upon a complete record of all evidence upon which the judgment is based and since the incomplete record does not establish that defendant was proved to be a habitual offender, this Court has no alternative but to remand the matter for another habitual offender hearing. *See*LSA-Const. art. 1, § 19; *State v. Palrean,*395 So.2d 687 (La.1981).

Accordingly, the conviction is affirmed. However, the adjudication and sentence as a habitual offender are set aside; and the matter is remanded to the trial court for *1302resentencing after another habitual offender hearing.

CONVICTION AFFIRMED; SENTENCE VACATED; CASE REMANDED.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Murphy J. LEBOUEF.

No. 87-KH-0816.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 23, 1987.

In re LeBouef, Murphy J.; applying for remedial writ; Parish of Vermilion, 15th Judicial District Court, Div. “G”, Nos. 24497, 24528.

Denied.
#### Antonio GOMEZ, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 87-1419.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

March 9, 1988.

Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Anthony Calvello, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Alfonso M. Saldana, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant seeks reversal of the trial court’s order requiring him to pay restitution. However, he did not object to the trial court’s order of restitution at the sentencing hearing. We affirm on the authority of *Spivey v. State,*501 So.2d 698 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). The court in *Spivey*held:

> Prior to the 1984 amendment, section 775.089(1), Florida Statutes (1983) provided that the court might order restitution by a defendant “if the defendant is able or will be able to make restitution.” Section 775.089(6), Florida Statutes (1985) now provides that the court, in ordering restitution, shall consider the financial resources of the defendant and the financial needs and earning ability of the defendant and his dependents. *However,*
>       *334section 775.089(7), Florida Statutes (1985) specifically provides that “[T]he burden of demonstrating the financial resources of the defendant and his dependents is on the defendant.” The failure of appellant to object in the court below to the order of restitution or to attempt to reduce the amount of restitution by citing his financial circumstances, did not meet the burden the statute places upon him.

*Id.*at 699.

AFFIRMED.

ANSTEAD, DELL and STONE, JJ., concur.
INTHE DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON,

D.C. Spa Rental, LLC., DbaMsi Aviation Complainant, Appellant, v. Somerset-Pulski County Airport Board, Respondent-Appellee.

FAADocket No.16-13-02 MOTION FOR LEAVETOFILEREPLYTO RESPONDENT'S BRIEF (REPLY TO APPEAL) ONOR BEFORE JANUARY 22,2016. Complainant, SPA Rental, LLC.,dbaMSI Aviation hereby movesforanorder granting

it January 22,2016.

,hio Reg. 0011186 T"hlCounselfor Complainant 130WestSecond Street,Suite 1010 Dayton,OH 45402 Telephone: (937) 228-8363 Facsimile: (937) 228-0520 EMail: your_lawyer@ sbcglobal.netMEMORANDUM Complainant/ Appellant received Respondent/ Appellee's brief on December 21, 2015. Review of said brief reveals numerous misstatements
of fact which are contrary or are unsupported
by the record. Counsel for Complainant/Appellant estimates that documenting

a Reply addressing these misstatements will consume
at lest three weeks subsequent
to the conclusion of the Christmas/New Years' holiday. Leave to file the anticipated Reply is respectfully requested.

{ nra uczak,
io eg. 0011186 Trial ounsel for Co plainant 130 West Second Street, Suite 1010 Dayton, OH 45402 Telephone: (937) 228-8363 Facsimile: (937) 228-0520 EMail: your_lawyer@ sbcglobal.net CERTIFICATE
OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that a true copy of the foregoing Notice of Appeal was served upon Jessie Di Gregory, Office of the Chief Counsel, by emailing

it to Jessie.DiGregory@faa.gov

and Rob.Hawks@faa.gov upon FAA Docket Clerk, by emailing

it to 9-A WA-AGC-PART -16@faa.gov and upon Ms. Rachel Owsley by emailing

it to rowsley@stites.com
and upon Ms. Bethany Breetz by e "ling it to eetz stites.com on December 23, 2015.
#### Mary Santella MACK v. Gerald MACK.

No. 89-C-0690.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 21, 1989.

In re Mack, Gerald; — Defendants); applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. CA87 1192; Parish of East Baton Rouge, Family Court, Parish of East Baton Rouge, Div. “A”, No. 60328.

Prior report: La.App., 536 So.2d 842.

Denied. The result is correct.
IIA

Calendar No. 98

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. J. RES. 14

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States authorizing

Congress to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MARCH 17, 1999

Mr. HATCH (for himself, Mr. CLELAND, Mr. ABRAHAM, Mr. ALLARD, Mr.

ASHCROFT, Mr. BAUCUS, Mr. BOND, Mr. BREAUX, Mr. BROWNBACK,

Mr. BUNNING, Mr. BURNS, Mr. CAMPBELL, Ms. COLLINS, Mr. COVERDELL, Mr. CRAIG, Mr. CRAPO, Mr. DEWINE, Mr. DOMENICI, Mr. ENZI,

Mrs. FEINSTEIN, Mr. FITZGERALD, Mr. FRIST, Mr. GORTON, Mr.

GRAHAM, Mr. GRAMM, Mr. GRAMS, Mr. GRASSLEY, Mr. GREGG, Mr.

HAGEL, Mr. HELMS, Mr. HOLLINGS, Mr. HUTCHINSON, Mrs.

HUTCHISON, Mr. INHOFE, Mr. JOHNSON, Mr. KYL, Mrs. LINCOLN, Mr.

LOTT, Mr. LUGAR, Mr. MACK, Mr. MCCAIN, Mr. MURKOWSKI, Mr. NICKLES, Mr. REID, Mr. ROBERTS, Mr. ROTH, Mr. SANTORUM, Mr. SESSIONS, Mr. SHELBY, Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire, Ms. SNOWE, Mr.

SPECTER, Mr. STEVENS, Mr. THOMAS, Mr. THOMPSON, Mr. THURMOND,

and Mr. WARNER, and Mr. VOINOVICH) introduced the following joint

resolution; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the

Judiciary

APRIL 29, 1999

Reported by Mr. Hatch, without amendment

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United

States authorizing Congress to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.
2

SJ 14 RS

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled

3 (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the fol4 lowing article is proposed as an amendment to the Con5 stitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all

6 intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when

7 ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several

8 States within 7 years after the date of its submission for

9 ratification:

10 ‘‘ARTICLE—

11 ‘‘The Congress shall have power to prohibit the phys12 ical desecration of the flag of the United States.’’.

Calendar No. 98

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. J. RES. 14

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the

States.the physical desecration of the flag of the UnitedUnited States authorizing Congress to prohibit

APRIL 29, 1999

Reported without amendment
#### Edwin H. POOLE, et ux. v. PHYSICIANS & SURGEONS HOSPITAL, et al.

No. 88-C-0013.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 5, 1988.

In re Physicians & Surgeons Hosp.; applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 19090-CA; Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court, Div. “E”, No. 312509.

Prior report: La.App., 516 So.2d 1185.

Denied.