alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
0G/O2/30n 1G:45 FAX 2024935142 FAA -> DMS 001/003 

William T. ThoiDp-soa 

JaineR M. (Mhch) LlAwellyn, Jr. 

THOMPSON ^^fD LLEWELLYN, P-A. 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW 

412 SoiiTH 18TH STREET 

P.O. Box 818 

FORT SMITH. ARKANSAS 72902-0818 

May 16, 2011 

-J ':. 0 03 

Telephone (479) 785-28<.7 

FHCsimile (419) 782-8(W; 

Certified Mail - Return Receipt Requested 

Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Wilbur Wright Building, Suite 2W1000 

800 Independence Avenue, SW 

Washington. DC 20591 

RE: In the Matter of Aero Mechanical Industries. Inc. 

Docket No, CP -- To Be Assigned 

Case No. 2009SW010004 

Dear Sir or Madam: 

,-O//-DO^ ^ 

Enclosed are the original and two copies of the Respondent's Motion to 

Withdraw Request for Hearing and the Respondent's An-swer in the abovereferenced proceeding. Please return a filed copy in the enclosed return 

envelope. 

Respectfully, 

Thompson and Llewellyn, P.A, 

James M. Llewellyn, Jr. 

JMLjr/kr 

Enclosures 

cc.w/encl.: Gregory S. Lander, Esq. 

.^v^ 

' " *1 V : ' * ^ ?. * 
06/02/2011 16:45 FAX 2024935142 FAA + DMS I2|002/003 

U.S, DEPARTMEN T OF TRANSPORTATIO N 

FEDERAL AVIATIO N ADMINISTRATIO N 

) 

In the Matter of: ) 

) FAA CASE NO. 2009SW010004 

AERO MECHANICAL INDUSTRIES, INC ) FAA Docket CP No. - To Be Assigned 

) Judge - Not Yet Assigned 

. ) 

MOTION TO WITHDRAW REQUEST FOR HEARING 

AND THE RESPONDENTS ANSWER 

The Respondent, Aero Mechanical Industries, Inc., appearing by and through its 

attorney of record, James M. LleweUyn, Jr., for its Motion, requests an Order: 

1. Approving the Respondent's Motion to Withdraw its Request for Hearing; 

and 

2. Approving the Respondent's Motion to Withdraw Respondent's Answer. 

WHEREFORE, the Respondent, Aero Mechanical Industries, Tnc.^ prays that tliis 

Court permit the Respondent to withdraw its Request for a Hearing and Answer and 

for such other relief as the Court may deem appropriate. 

Dated this 16th day of May, 2011. 

Respectfully submitted, 

AERO MECHANICAL INDUSTRIES, INC. 

Respondent 
06/02/201 1 16:4 5 FAX 2024935142 FAA + DMS 0003/003 

j'ellyn,Jr:; ABA #66040 

'THOMPSON AND LLEWELLYN, P.A. 

412 South 18th Street 

P.O. Box 818 

Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 

Telephone: 479-85-2867 

Facsimile: 479-782-8046 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I certify that the foregoing MOTION TO WITHDRAW REQUEST FOR 

HEARING AND THE RESPONDENT'S ANSWER and two copies have been mailed 

this date by Certified Mail-Return Receipt Requested, to: 

Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC^30 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Wilbur Wright Building, Suite 2W1000 

800 Independence Avenue, SW 

Washington, DC 20591 

I certify that a copy of the MOTION TO WITHDRAW REQUEST FOR HEARING AND 

THE RESPONDENT'S ANSWER has been mailed this date by Certified Mail-Return Receipt 

Requested, to; 

Gregory S. Lander, Esq. 

Safety Enforcement Branch 

Federal Aviation Administration 

2601 Mcacham Blvd. 

Fort Worth, TX 76137-0007 

t^^^^JP^ 

fames M. Llewellyn, Jr.
A list of wholly owned subsidiaries of the Company is as follows:

     1.   USX  Operating  Co.,  Inc., a  corporation  organized and existing
          under the laws of the State of Kansas.

     2.   Producer Service  Incorporated,  a corporation  organized and existing
          under the laws of the State of Kansas.

     3.   Performance  Petroleum   Corporation,   a  corporation  organized  and
          existing under the laws of the State of Colorado.

     4.   Pacific  Osage,  Inc., a corporation  organized and existing under the
          laws of the State of Oklahoma.

     6.   Argas,  Inc., a corporation  organized and existing  under the laws of
          the State of Kansas.

     7.   US Gas Gathering,  Inc., a corporation  organized and existing under
          the laws of the State of Delaware.
Order filed, September 20, 2016

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 16

- 00562

- CR

____________ TALBOT OLGUIN HOWAR D , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 232nd District Court

Harris County, Tex as Trial Court Cause No. 1457552



### ORDER
The reporter’s record in this case was due August 29, 2016

. See Tex. R. App. P. 35.1. The court has not received a request to extend time for filing the
record. The record has not been filed with the court. Bec ause the reporter’s record has not been filed timely, we issue the following order.

We order Arlene Webb , the official court reporter, to file the record in this appeal within 30 days of the date of this order

. PER CURIAM
-79.0 -78.5 -78.0 -77.5 -77.0 -76.5

 37.5

 38.0

 38.5

 39.0

★

▲

▲

▲

▲

★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲

 500

 1000

 1500

 100

18 12 06 00

07/09

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 09 Jul 07

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 38.86 N 77.06 W Meters AGL
EXHIBIT
32.2





CERTIFICATION





PURSUANT
TO RULE 13A-14(B) OR RULE 15D-14(B)





OF THE
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 AND 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350





In
connection with the Quarterly Report of EPL Intermediate, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended July 1, 2009 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Gary
Campanaro, Chief Financial Officer for the Company, 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 result of operations of the
      Company.




Date:
August 14, 2009






/s/ Gary
      Campanaro
              Gary
      Campanaro
              Chief
      Financial Officer
              EPL
      Intermediate, Inc.




This
certification is made solely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, and not
for any other purpose. A signed original of this written statement required by
Section 906 has been provided to EPL Intermediate, Inc. and will be retained by
EPL Intermediate, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request.
EXHIBIT  99.1

                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  Annual Report of American Income Partners V-B Limited
Partnership  Liquidating  Trust (the "Trust"), on Form 10-K for the period ended
September  30,  2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date  hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer of the
Trust,  hereby  certifies  pursuant  to  18  U.S.C.  1350 as adopted pursuant to
Section  906  of  the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act  of  2002  that:

(1)     the Report of the Trust filed today 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
Trust.

                    /s/  Gary  D.  Engle
                    --------------------
                    Gary  D.  Engle
                    President  (Chief  Executive  Officer)
Equis  Corporation, as Manager of the Trust, under a Liquidating Trust Agreement
dated  as  of  July  18,  2002,  Wilmington  Trust  Company,  as Trustee and not
Individually

                    March  31,  2003
III

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. RES. 114

Designating June 22, 1999, as ‘‘National Pediatric AIDS Awareness Day’’.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JUNE 9, 1999

Mr. HATCH (for himself, Mrs. BOXER, Mr. BOND, Mr. SCHUMER, Mr.

DEWINE, Mr. BIDEN, Mr. WARNER, Mr. DASCHLE, Mr. CRAPO, Mr.

HOLLINGS, Mr. BENNETT, Mr. KERRY, Mr. SMITH of Oregon, Mr. LAUTENBERG, Mr. FITZGERALD, Mrs. MURRAY, Ms. SNOWE, Mr. ROBB, Mr.

MACK, Mr. TORRICELLI, Mr. ABRAHAM, Mr. WELLSTONE, Mr. BURNS,

Mr. CLELAND, Mrs. HUTCHISON, Mr. DODD, Mr. SPECTER, Mr. DURBIN,

Mr. CAMPBELL, Mr. EDWARDS, Mr. FRIST, Mr. INOUYE, Mr. GORTON,

Mrs. FEINSTEIN, Mr. LOTT, Mr. REID, Mr. ASHCROFT, Mr. GRAHAM,

Mr. COCHRAN, Mr. JOHNSON, Mr. JEFFORDS, Mr. KERREY, Mr.

CHAFEE, Ms. MIKULSKI, Mr. GRASSLEY, Mr. BAYH, Mr. CRAIG, Mr.

REED, Mr. NICKLES, and Mr. KOHL) submitted the following resolution;

which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

RESOLUTION

Designating June 22, 1999, as ‘‘National Pediatric AIDS

Awareness Day’’.

Whereas acquired immune deficiency syndrome (referred to

in this resolution as ‘‘AIDS’’) is the 7th leading cause of

death for children in the United States;

Whereas approximately 15,000 children in the United States

are currently infected with human immunodeficiency

virus (referred to in this resolution as ‘‘HIV’’), the virus

that causes AIDS;
2

•SRES 114 IS

Whereas the number of children who have died from AIDS

worldwide since the AIDS epidemic began has reached

2,700,000;

Whereas it is estimated that an additional 40,000,000 children will die from AIDS by the year 2020;

Whereas perinatal transmission of HIV from mother to child

accounts for 91 percent of pediatric HIV cases;

Whereas studies have demonstrated that the maternal transmission of HIV to an infant decreased from 30 percent

to less than 8 percent after therapeutic intervention was

employed;

Whereas effective drug treatments have decreased the percentage of deaths from AIDS in the United States by 47

percent in both 1998 and 1999;

Whereas the number of children of color infected with HIV

is disproportionate to the national statistics with respect

to all children;

Whereas The Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric AIDS Foundation

has been devoted over the past decade to the education,

research, prevention, and elimination of acquired immune

deficiency syndrome (AIDS); and

Whereas the people of the United States should resolve to do

everything possible to control and eliminate this epidemic

that threatens our future generations: Now, therefore, be

it

1 Resolved, That the Senate—

2 (1) in recognition of all of the individuals who

3 have devoted their time and energy toward combat4 ting the spread and costly effects of acquired im-
3

•SRES 114 IS

1 mune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) epidemic, des2 ignates June 22, 1999, as ‘‘National Pediatric AIDS

3 Awareness Day’’; and

4 (2) requests that the President issue a procla5 mation calling on the people of the United States to

6 observe the day with appropriate ceremonies and ac7 tivities.

Æ
----

----

|   | (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. |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| May      6, 2010 | /s/      Paul Roszel                    |
|------------------|-----------------------------------------|
|             | Paul      Roszel                        |
|             | President,      Chief Executive Officer |

----
#### Ruemeli *v.*Wilson et al., Appellants.

*Practice, Supreme Court*— Appeals—Verdict's—-JSxcessive *verdict —Consideration iy Supreme Court.*

Where on appeal to the Supreme Court from a judgment on a verdict for plaintiff, the only assignment of error pressed by the appellant complains that the verdict was excessive, the judgment will be affirmed, as the question of the reasonableness of the verdict was for the court below .to determine under all the evidence, on motion for a new trial.

Argued April 2, 1918.

Appeal, No. 89, Jan. T., 1917, by Irving N. Wood, from Judgment of C. P. No. 2, Philadelphia Co., March T., 1916, No. 2414, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Babette Ruemeli v. Ellwood A. Wilson and Irving N. Wood.

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

Affirmed.

Trespass to recover damages for personal injuries. Before Barratt, P. J.

. Verdict for plaintiff for $5,000 and judgment thereon. Irving N. Wood appealed.

*Error assigned*inter alia was as follows:

“Third, the verdict is grossly excessive.”

*Maurice W. Sloan,*for appellant.

*Warren G. Graham,*for appellee, was not heard.

June 3, 1918:

Per Curiam,

Two of the three assignments of error are not pressed. The third complains of the excessiveness of the verdict. *453That was a question for the court below, under all the evidence, on the motion for a new trial, and we cannot, therefore, disturb the judgment for the only error pressed. It is, therefore, affirmed.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-10708

Conference Calendar

__________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

BENJAMIN RODRIGUEZ MACIAS,

a/k/a Howdy,

 Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:92-CR-279-R

- - - - - - - - - -

April 16, 1996

Before DUHÉ, DeMOSS, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Benjamin Rodriguez Macias appeals the sentence imposed by

the district court after he pleaded guilty to distribution of

cocaine. He argues that the court erred by increasing his

offense level based on the possession of a dangerous weapon and

by holding him accountable for drug quantities reflected in notes

found at his residence. We have reviewed the record and Macias's

brief and AFFIRM Macias's sentence for the same reasons given by

the district court at sentencing.
#### Karyn Jenkins Driscoll MENCK and Laurel Jenkins Driscoll Farmer, Appellants, v. Patricia K. DRISCOLL, f/k/a Patricia K. Jenkins, Appellee.

No. 87-2842.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Oct. 11, 1988.

Fogle & Poole and Charles I. Poole, Miami, for appellants.

Santiago G. Leon, Miami, for appellee.

Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and NESBITT and FERGUSON, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The parties to this dispute are a mother and her two daughters. At issue is the parents’ intent in creating a trust. Patricia Driscoll, the mother, claims that she is the owner of one-half of the real property held in trust by virtue of a judgment dissolving her marriage. The children contend that the real property was conveyed to the trust during the parents’ marriage for the benefit of the children during their minority. The ownership issue arose when Mrs. Dris-coll sought authority of the court to sell the real property. Both sides relied on affidavits to explain interlineations in the admittedly vague trust documents. This appeal is brought from a summary judgment entered for the mother.

We reverse on the authority of *Kirsh v. Mannen,*393 So.2d 63, 64 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), which holds that “when conflicting legal inferences, particularly concerning the intent of the parties, may be drawn from an ambiguous legal document, or as to the effect even of undisputed facts, the issue is not properly subject to summary adjudication, and may be resolved only after trial.” Because material issues of fact and law were created by the affidavits and the ambiguous legal document, summary disposition was inappropriate.

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
First Electric Cooperative Corporation, Jacksonville, AR

Distribution Pole Replacement Costs

20-Oct-11

General Information: J Joyce

1. Standard distribution transformer Pole is 40 foot Class 3 Southern Yellow Pine

2. Replacement pole is a 40 foot Class 3 Southern Yellow Pine

3. Replacement is performed while circuit is energized.

4. Digger Derrick Truck is normally required for installation, removal and replacement of distribution p

5. Most distribution lines are three-phase lines and replacement is estimated for that type of circuit.

6. No salvage value is given to the pole being retired since it will not be re-used.

7. The only new equipment being installed along with the replacement pole is the grounding of the ne

8. Hardware and other equipment on the original pole, other than in 7 above, is re-used. 

9. Labor, transportation, and overheads are estimated to complete the retirement of the original pole

 and replace it with a new pole in the energized circuit as described above including the cost of the n

Estimated cost of this pole replacement process is $1,703.86
n Yellow Pine

and replacement of distribution poles.

stimated for that type of circuit.

nt pole is the grounding of the new pole.

7 above, is re-used. 

he retirement of the original pole

d above including the cost of the new pole.

ss is $1,703.86
#### Edwin Friedman et al., Plaintiffs, *v.*George Linsay et al., Defendants.

Supreme Court, Pretrial Term, Kings County,

July 9, 1957.

*David A. Goldner*for plaintiffs.

*Russell B. Greases*for defendants.

Benjamin Brenner, J.

The court does not recollect precisely whether plaintiffs’ attorney objected to the impartial orthopedic and neurological examinations when the oral application therefor was first made and granted at pretrial. It is its impression that the attorney was agreeable thereto provided the fees were paid by the defendant and provided further that a copy of the report be furnished. In any case, the matter has been reviewed as requested upon formal papers and the objec*753tions as to adequate notice of the application and the term where it may be heard are thus waived.

The facts set out in the affidavit before me confirm my original view that the examinations are essential, especially since it now appears that there are substantial variations between the physical examination and findings made prior to suit and those claimed after commencement of the action. *(Anthony*v. *Bradshaw,*282 App. Div. 851.)

The court is not without power at pretrial under rule 8 of the Kings County Supreme Court Rules to order an impartial physical examination upon consent. But even if such consent had not been given or, if given, was later withdrawn, it must be noted that section 306 of the Civil Practice Act does not restrict the making of such an order, without consent, to any particular term or part of the court. Nor is there any limitation expressed in the statute as to a second examination when need therefor is shown. *(Conforti*v. *Central School Dist. No. 3,*284 App. Div. 1084.) The authorities cited by the plaintiffs are primarly predicated upon an absence of notice of the application or of necessity for the examination and are therefore distinguishable.

An impartial physical examination is often desirable to afford the court a basis for evaluating a case upon pretrial. Where settlement is not effected at such conference, the examination may shed light on the extent of plaintiff’s injuries for use at a subsequent pretrial negotiation. And, if settlement is ulti-" mately not possible, the impartial examination serves to narrow the issues upon the trial which, short of complete disposition of the litigation, is the second all-important objective of the pretrial procedure.

The order for the examination is signed.
September 23, 2015 

Dear Mr. Ruben: 

This letter is to inform you that the following information is missing from your petition 

(Docket No. FAA-2015-2177). This information is necessary for the Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) to process your petition.

 Provide a copy of the Motion Picture and Television Operations Manual (MPTOM) 

which is required by Order 8900.1, Volume 3, Chapter 8, Section 1. If you wish for us to 

proceed without this manual and remove closed-set filming from your proposed operation 

please inform of us of your intention by the requested response date listed below. 

Please submit the additional information (non-proprietary) to your docket at 

www.regulations.gov and submit any proprietary information to the FAA Headquarters or 

electronically via email to 333exemptions@faa.gov. If you want us to process your request any 

further, we must receive the information described above by 10/7/15. If we do not receive the 

information, we will close the docket without notifying you further. 

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (202) 267-4712. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

Brenda Robeson 

Program Analyst
FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

Case No. 5D23-1592 

LT Case No. 2019-CF-001503-A 

_____________________________

DOUGLAS M. WILLIAMS, 

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA, 

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Sumter County. 

David B. Eddy, Judge. 

Matthew J. Metz, Public Defender, and Teresa D. Sutton, 

Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

Douglas M. Williams, Bonifay, pro se.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Kaylee D. 

Tatman, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for 

Appellee.

November 14, 2023

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. 

EDWARDS, C.J., MAKAR, and JAY, JJ., concur. 
2 

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331. 

_____________________________
Page 1 of 3

Disposition Comments

Docket No: FAA-2014-0424 These comments are in

Directorate ID: 2014-NM-003-AD response to an SNPRM

Originating Office Tracking No.: CF-2013-41

Next Step: FRAN SNPRM

 No Comments/Only Supportive Comments Received – If this box is checked, no signatures are 

required.

No Has the referenced service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? If yes, 

list latest revision and attach a copy. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously 

published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance.

Instructions: Summarize all comments by issue (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of 

each issue. All comments relating to the same issue should be discussed together. Do not list all of the issues 

from one commenter together. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and 

describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA-IR-M-8040.1C Chapter 9.

ISSUE 1: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD: 

If NO, we don’t agree because 

ISSUE 2: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD:
Page 2 of 3

If NO, we don’t agree because 

For additional issues, double-click here
Page 3 of 3

Signature Section

Signature indicates concurrence with this action.

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

ASE Printed Name: Date

Branch Manager Date