alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Jonathan C


Jonathan C. Gilchrist

6524 San Felipe, Ste. 252

Houston, Texas 77057

(713) 266-3700




May 1, 2002




Cyber Law Reporter, Inc.

1207 Wisterwood

Houston, Texas 77043







To the Board of Directors:




This letter shall serve as a letter of commitment from the undersigned to provide capital to the company for the twelve month period beginning on the date first specified above to cover the costs of operations, legal and accounting compliance and other business needs of the company up to a total of $10,000.  Funds shall be made available if and when requested from the company to meet its obligations during the period upon written request from a proper officer of the Company.  As funds are requested an provided by the shareholder, the company shall provide the shareholder with a promissory note in the amount of the funds requested and contributed.  The Note shall not bear interest and shall be nonrecourse.




If the company has raised capital for operations in an amount in excess of $300,000 at any time during the next twelve months, then the obligation of the shareholder to provide the financing agreed to in this Letter Agreement shall terminate and no further obligation shall remain to the shareholder in this regard.




Sincerely,







Jonathan C. Gilchrist




AGREED AND ACCEPTED

Cyber Law Reporter, Inc.




By: __/s/_William Carmichael, Secretary__
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               JAN-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                    JUL-31-1999
<CASH>                               1,966
<SECURITIES>                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                            0
<ALLOWANCES>                             0
<INVENTORY>                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                     1,966
<PP&E>                             881,336
<DEPRECIATION>                      35,960
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                     901,441
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>            2,053,658
<BONDS>                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                    0
<PREFERRED>                              0
<COMMON>                            37,867
<OTHER-SE>                               0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>       901,441
<SALES>                                  0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                         0
<CGS>                                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                      140,406
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                         0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                 (56,158)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                   (140,406)
<INCOME-TAX>                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                      0
<DISCONTINUED>                    (140,406)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                          0
<CHANGES>                                0
<NET-INCOME>                      (140,406)
<EPS-BASIC>                       (0.004)
<EPS-DILUTED>                       (0.004)



</TABLE>
833 F.2d 1316, 1318 (9th Cir. 1987) (citing Moody v. Daggett, 429 U.S. 78 

(1976)). And neither NRS 179A.150 (providing for the inspection and 

correction of information contained in an individual's record of criminal 

history) nor NRS 179A.160 (permitting the removal of certain criminal 

records from a party's criminal history when the party has been acquitted 

of a charge or has received a favorable disposition regarding the charge) 

creates such an interest. Thus, the district court correctly concluded that 

appellant could not state a due process claim with regard to his being 

labeled an escape risk, as appellant did not identify a liberty or property 

interest that he was deprived of as a result of this classification. See 

Pressler v. City of Reno, 118 Nev. 506, 510, 50 P.3d 1096, 1098 (2002) 

("The protections of due process only attach when there is a deprivation of 

a protected property or liberty interest"); see also Walker v. Gomez, 370 

F.3d 969, 973 (9th Cir. 2004) (recognizing that a prisoner does not have a 

property or liberty interest in prison employment under the due process 

clause); Hernandez, 833 F.2d at 1318 (explaining that a prisoner does not 

have a protected interest in his prison classification). 

Accordingly, we 

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 

Gibbons 

ougas 

Saitta 

\ouz 1:)441

J. 

2 
cc: Hon. James Todd Russell, District Judge 

Ernest Jord Guardado 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Carson City Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 

3
':FPARTWE!MTO[-

:nAMSP0RTA110N 

;OCKET 0PERAT10M3 

February 10,2012 ?;!i/ FEB i 5 P 3- !5 

Department of Transportation 

Re: Sun Country slot exemption Docket No. FAA-2012-0089 

To Whom This May Concern: 

I am writing in support of SUN COUNTRY AIRLINES. It has been just wonderful having this airline 

fly from Lansing Michigan to Washington D.C. Whenever I take the flight it is always a filled plane. 

This airline has provided safe service since last April. 1 am a senior citizen who really appreciates not 

having to change planes in Detroit! 

Please authorize an additional slot for Sun Country Airlines in Washington D.C. under the exemption 

rule. 

In addition to my personal reasons, it is very important to the Greater Lansing's economical 

development efforts. Because this is the state capital and a university town, we have many 

professionals needing to make this trip to the nation's capital on a regular basis. Having a direct fight 

has been very beneficial to the community. 

In addition, I grew up in Minnesota and return whenever possible to visit relatives and friends. I am 

very grateful for the Lansing to Minneapolis fight, also. 

Sincerely, 

Mary Ann Sullivan Dunn 

3843 Sandlewood Drive 

Okemos, MI 48864
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                          91,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,090,100
<ALLOWANCES>                                   595,300
<INVENTORY>                                     25,500
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               678,400
<PP&E>                                       1,641,400
<DEPRECIATION>                                 340,200
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,787,100
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,105,500
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     12,400
<COMMON>                                        31,100
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,003,600
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,787,100
<SALES>                                      1,227,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,139,800
<CGS>                                          366,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,682,400
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              27,100
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 64,300
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,400
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             61,900
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    61,900
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 2 3
- 0147 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. ALEXANDER GARRETT LAFORGE III,

Defendant and Appellant
.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including June 21 , 2024, within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

May 10 2024

05/10/2024

Case Number: DA 23-0147
# EUR-Lex - 22003D0079 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 22003D0079

**Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 79/2003 of 20 June 2003 amending Annex XI (Telecommunication services) to the EEA Agreement **

*
Official Journal L 257 , 09/10/2003 P. 0029 - 0030 *

Decision of the EEA Joint Committee

No 79/2003

of 20 June 2003

amending Annex XI (Telecommunication services) to the EEA Agreement

THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, as amended by the Protocol adjusting the Agreement on the European Economic Area, hereinafter referred to as "the Agreement", and in particular Article 98 thereof,

Whereas:

(1) Annex XI to the Agreement was amended by Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 168/2002 of 6 December 2002(1).

(2) Decision No 676/2002/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a regulatory framework for radio spectrum policy in the European Community (Radio Spectrum Decision)(2) is to be incorporated into the Agreement,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

The following point shall be inserted after point 5ce (Regulation (EC) No 2887/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council) of Annex XI to the Agreement:

"5cf. 32002 D 0676: Decision No 676/2002/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a regulatory framework for radio spectrum policy in the European Community (Radio Spectrum Decision) (OJ L 108, 24.4.2002, p. 1).

The provisions of the Decision shall, for the purposes of the present Agreement, be read with the following adaptations:

The following paragraphs shall be added to Article 6:

'4. Without prejudice to paragraphs 5 and 6, paragraphs 1 to 4 shall not apply to the EFTA States.

5. As regards the EFTA States, the EFTA States shall carry out the tasks of the Commission mentioned in paragraph 1 and inform the Standing Committee of any difficulties created, de jure or de facto, by third countries or international organisations for the implementation of this Decision, which shall draw up a report.

6. This Article shall be without prejudice to the EFTA States' rights and obligations under relevant international agreements.'"

Article 2

The texts of Decision No 676/2002/EC in the Icelandic and Norwegian languages, to be published in the EEA Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union, shall be authentic.

Article 3

This Decision shall enter into force on 21 June 2003, provided that all the notifications under Article 103(1) of the Agreement have been made to the EEA Joint Committee(3).

Article 4

This Decision shall be published in the EEA section of, and in the EEA Supplement to, the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 20 June 2003.

For the EEA Joint Committee

The President

P. Westerlund

(1) OJ L 38, 13.2.2003, p. 30.

(2) OJ L 108, 24.4.2002, p. 1.

(3) Constitutional requirements indicated.
<PAGE>
                                                                     EXHIBIT 4.1


                             SUPPLEMENTAL INDENTURE

                                       OF

                                   GUARANTORS

         THIS SUPPLEMENTAL INDENTURE dated as of November 12, 2001 is delivered
pursuant to Section 10.04 of the Indenture dated as of November 15, 1996 (as
heretofore or hereafter modified and supplemented and in effect from time to
time, the "Indenture") among LAMAR MEDIA CORP., a Delaware corporation,
(formerly Lamar Advertising Company) certain of its subsidiaries ("Guarantors")
and STATE STREET BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, a Massachusetts banking corporation, as
Trustee ("Trustee") (all terms used herein without definition having the
meanings ascribed to them in the Indenture).

         The undersigned hereby agree that:

         1. The undersigned is a Guarantor under the Indenture with all of the
rights and obligations of a Guarantor thereunder.

         2. The undersigned hereby grants, ratifies and confirms the guarantee
provided for by Article Ten of the Indenture to guarantee unconditionally,
jointly and severally with the other Guarantors, to each Holder of a Note
authenticated and delivered by the Trustee, and to the Trustee on behalf of such
Holder, the due and punctual payment of the principal of (and premium, if any)
and interest on such Note when and as the same shall become due and payable.

         3. The undersigned hereby represents and warrants that the
representations and warranties set forth in the Indenture, to the extent
relating to the undersigned as Guarantor, are correct on and as of the date
hereof.

         4. All notices, requests and other communications provided for in the
Indenture should be delivered to the undersigned at the address specified in
Section 12.02 of the Indenture.

         5. A counterpart of this Supplemental Indenture may be attached to any
counterpart of the Indenture.

         6. This Supplemental Indenture shall be governed by and construed in
accordance with the laws of the State of New York.



<PAGE>


         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have caused this Supplemental
Indenture to be duly executed as of the day and year first above written.

                                    Guarantor:

                                    Trans West Outdoor Advertising, Inc.,
                                    a California company

                                    By:  /s/ Keith A. Istre
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                         Keith A. Istre
                                         Vice President - Finance and Chief
                                         Financial Officer

Attest:

By:      /s/ James R. McIlwain
   ----------------------------------
     James R. McIlwain, Secretary

Accepted:

STATE STREET BANK AND TRUST
    COMPANY, as Trustee

By:      /s/ Andrew L. Sciorz
   ---------------------------------

Title:   Assistant Vice President
      ------------------------------


                                       2
### 23187 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 20, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

State citation Rule title State effective date EPA final rule date Final rule citation Comments

*******

* * * * * (e) * * *
Title/subject State effective date Notice of final rule date NFR citation **(1) Statewide**

******* Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 Lead, 2008 8-hour Ozone,

2010 NO 2 , 2010 SO 2 , and 2012 PM 2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards. N/A 4/20/2016 [Insert **Federal Register** citation].
Infrastructure Requirements, Interstate Transport of Pollution

110(a)(2)(D)(ii) for the 1997 and 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS. N/A 4/20/2016 [Insert **Federal Register** citation]. Montana Code Annotated 2–2–121(2)(e) and 2–2–121(8) ....................... N/A 4/20/2016 [Insert **Federal Register** citation].

*******

* * * * * [FR Doc. 2016–08916 Filed 4–19–16; 8:45 am] **BILLING CODE 6560–50–P**

**ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY**  **40 CFR Part 63 [EPA–HQ–OAR–2014–0492; FRL–9945–34–**  **OAR] RIN 2060–AR97**  **Clarification of Requirements for Method 303 Certification Training** 
**AGENCY :**  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). **ACTION :**  Withdrawal of direct final rule.
**SUMMARY :**  Because the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) received adverse comment, we are withdrawing the direct final rule for Clarification of Requirements for Method 303 Certification Training, published on February 25, 2016. **DATES :**  Effective April 20, 2016, the EPA withdraws the direct final rule published at 81 FR 9350, on February 25, 2016. **FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT :**  Ms. Kim Garnett, U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Air Quality Assessment Division, Measurement Technology Group (Mail Code: E143–02), Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone number: (919) 541–1158; fax number: (919) 541–0516; email address: garnett.kim@epa.gov

. **SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION :**  Because the EPA received adverse comment, we are withdrawing the direct final rule for Clarification of Requirements for Method 303 Certification Training, published on February 25, 2016 (81 FR 9350). We stated in that direct final rule that if we received adverse comment by March 28, 2016, the direct final rule would not take effect and we would publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register . We subsequently received adverse comment on that direct final rule. We will address those comments in any subsequent final action, which will be based on the parallel proposed rule also published on February 25, 2016 (81 FR 9407). As stated in the direct final rule and the parallel proposed rule, we will not institute a second comment period on this action.

Dated: April 14, 2016. Janet G. McCabe, Acting Assistant Administrator. [FR Doc. 2016–09157 Filed 4–19–16; 8:45 am] **BILLING CODE 6560–50–P**
**CONSENT
      OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**





We
      consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement on Form
      S-8
      No. 333-126137 of Aerotelesis, Inc. of our report dated July 14, 2005, with
      respect to the consolidated financial statements of Aerotelesis, Inc. included
      in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended March 31,
      2006.




*/S/
              Killman,
              Murrell & Company, P.C*.Killman,
                Murrell & Company, P.C.




Odessa,
      Texas


July
      13,
      2006
Federal Aviation Administration 

Office of Airport Compliance and Management Analysis 

8001ndependenceAvenue, SVV 

Washington, DC 20591 

Subject: The State of California's Action Plan in Response to FAA Policy Change 

79 FR 66282-01; Docket FAA-2013-0988 

Dear Mr. Huffman: 

This letter follows the April27, 2016 meeting between officials from the Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), the California Department of Finance, the California State Transportation 

Agency and the California Airport Council, in which (1) the Department of Finance's November 

25, 2015 Action Plan in response to the FAA's policy change regarding local taxes on aviation 

fuel and (2) the FAA's March 10, 2016 tetter acknowledging the Action Plan were discussed. 

At the meeting, FAA Senior Attorney Elizabeth Newman clarified the statement in the FAA's 

March 10 letter that "we understand that the State will not submit a request for grandfathered 

status ... for taxes on aviation fuel in effect on December 30, 1987." She explained that this 

statement was not intended to imply that the State was legally required to request grandfathered 

status for pre-December 30, 1987 state sales tax rates, but was merely intended to seek 

additiOnal information so that the FAA could understand all state sales tax rates in effect in 

California. Michael Cohen, Director of Finance, committed to providing the FAA information 

regarding state sales tax rates enacted before December 30, 1987, and that information is 

enclosed with this letter. 

FAA representatives agreed during the meeting that the methodology, as presented in the 

State's Action Plan and restated at the meeting, by which the State will determine whether state 

general sales tax revenues derived from aviation fuel offsets state expenditures on local public 

use airports is correct. They expressed concern, however, that the Action Plan did not provide 

sufficient detail regarding the process to refine these estimates. Director Cohen committed to 

providing sufficient detail in the Department of Finance's explanation of its estimates so that the 

FAA could confirm the State's approach, and that the expenditures claimed by the State were 

consistent with those set forth in the FAA's revenue use policy. Kevin Willis, Manager of the 

FAA's Office of Airport Compliance, confirmed that once this approach was approved by the 

FAA, the review process would be complete and the State would not be required to submit 

future estimates to demonstrate its compliance with the FAA's policy unless the FAA contacted 

the State to investigate a complaint. 
g

g

g

Forecasting, Labor, and Transportation 

Enclosures 
1.0625% Dedicated to the Local Revenue Fund 2011 for spaclfied I 

7202 and 7203 

6051.2 and 6201.2 

6051.3 and 6201.3 

j i
EXHIBIT 8.1
  TERRA
    NOVA ROYALTY CORPORATION
  LIST OF
    SIGNIFICANT SUBSIDIARIES AS AT MARCH 31, 2011
  BeneficialCountry of Incorporation

Interest(1)M Financial Corp.

Barbados


100
%MFC Commodities GmbH

Austria


100
%MFC Trade & Financial Service GmbH

Austria


100
%IC Management Service GmbH

Austria


100
%Global Bulk Transport GmbH

Austria


100
%International Trade Service GmbH

Austria


100
%Magnum Minerals Private Limited

India


100
%AFM Aluminiumfolie Merseberg GmbH

Germany


55
%MAW Mansfelder Alumiumwerk GmbH

Germany


55
%MFC (A) Ltd

Marshall Islands


100
%MFC (D) Ltd

Marshall Islands


100
%Brock Metals s.r.o.

Slovakia


100
%MFC Corporate Services AG

Switzerland


100
%Mednet (Shanghai) Medical Technical Developing Co., Ltd

China


90
%Chongqing Lasernet Guangji Eye Hospital (a limited company)

China


52
%Hangzhou Zhe-er Optical Co. Ltd

China


46
%MFC Metal Trading GmbH

Austria


100
%MEG International Services Ltd

Canada


100
%       (1)
    
    Percentages rounded to nearest whole number
### UNITED STATES NAVY

- MARINE CORPS

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Before

J.A. FISCHER, T.H. CAMPBELL, T.J. STINSON

Appellate Military Judges

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

COMPTON A. SMITH

SERGEANT (E

- 5), U.S. MARINE CORPS

NMCCA 20150 0308

SPECIAL COURT

- MARTIAL

Sentence Adjudged: 21 May 2015

. Military Judge: LtCol David Jones, USMC

. Convening Authority: Commanding General, Marine Corps

Recruit Depot/Eastern Recruiting Region, Parris Island, SC

. Staff Judge Advocate's Recommendation: Capt C.J. Fuller,

USMC

. For Appellant: Maj Emmett Collazo, USMCR.

For Appellee: Mr. Brian Keller , Esq

.

10 March 2016

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

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

After careful consideration of the record, submitted

without assignment of error, we affirm the findings and sentence

as approved by the convening authority. Art. 66(c), Uniform

Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 866(c).

For the Court

R.H. TROIDL

Clerk of Court