alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
SERVED: OCTOBER24, 2014 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, DC
IN THE MATTER OF DGD,INC. DOCKETNO. FAA-2014-0684 (Civil Penalty Action)

NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT OF PROCEEDING This proceeding (heretofore designated as Case No. 2009S0700173) has been assigned to Administrative Law Judge J.E. Sullivan. All future pleadings and other communications regarding this proceeding shall be served onthe Judge, the FAA Hearing Docket, and the other persons onthe attached Service List.

Attachment

- Service List

### SERVICE LIST- BY U.S. MAIL ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

### Federal AviationAdministration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 Attention:. Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building-Suite2Wl0001



### DGD, Inc., Respondent 

### Attn: President 1325 N.W. 78th Avenue, Suite 104 Doral, FL 33126 TEL: 888-219-4544 FAX: 786-999-8893 DGD, Inc., Respondent 

### Attn: President 1561 N.W. 82nd Avenue Doral, FL 33126 ONE COPY



### Rashawn George, Complainant's Counsel 

### Federal Aviation Administration Office ofthe Regional Counsel, AS0-7 Southern Region 1701 ColumbiaAvenue College Park, GA 30337 TEL: 404-305-5200 FAX: 404-305-5223 Hon. J.E. Sullivan,Administrative LawJudge 

### Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 NewJersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) Washington, DC 20590 TEL: 202-366-6941 FAX: 202-366-7536 DocketNo. FAA-2014-0684 (Civil Penalty Action)

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person orby expedited courier, use the following address: Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1000, Washington, DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. 

### -2-
Exhibit 31.1                                                 CERTIFICATION

I, Vito A. Peppitoni, certify that:

1.  I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of
Arizona Aircraft Spares, Inc.;

2.  Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any
untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a
material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
light of the circumstances under which such statements were
made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by
this report;

3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other
financial information included in this report, fairly
present in all material respects the financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.  The registrant's other certifying officers and I are
responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure
controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a)  Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or
caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be
designed under supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others
within those entities, particularly during the period in
which this report is being prepared;

b)  Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report our
conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure
controls and procedures, as of the end of the period
covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

c)  Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's
internal control over financial reporting that occurred
during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the
registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an
annual report) that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's
internal control over financial reporting; and

5.  The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have
disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal
control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors
and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors
(or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a)  All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in
the design or operation of internal control over financial
reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect
the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and
report financial information; and

b)  any fraud, whether or not material, that involves
management or other employees who have a significant role
in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.


Date: December 15,2003                By: /s/  Vito A. Peppitoni
                                       President and Chief
                                       Executive Officer
                                       (Principal Executive Officer)
2013-12-20 11:54 FAA 8172225092 » 2024935142 p 1 

To: Hearing Dnt::ket Cletk, AGC·A30 

company: Federal Avlatlon Administration 

Fr!'>m: Annjan&t Chermaul!, 

Tilla: A gancy Attorney 

Wlthd.rawal of Complaint 

Federal Aviation 

Administration 

Southwoot Reglon 

O.ffic& of Regiona.l Counsel 

Fort Worth, Tli!xas. 76137 

f'§l\il<aQ.!W'Co!!f!!lr Alld!l!H 

2601. Mane!Jilrtl fklulavaoo 

FortWol1h, Texas 761::11 

T {811 .. ?22.50!19} 

F {fli7.222.51l4515092) 

Fa.cslmlle 

In the Matter of: Mesa Akllnes, Inc,- FAA Docket Nos. 2013-0'121, 2013-0722, 

2013-0846, and 20·13-0047. 

Please Note:: 'Th!fl message Is 1r1tended only for the use of the Individual or enUty k1 

which II is addressed and may conlain information !hat is privileged, confidential, and 

exempt from dl1:1closure under applicable law," 
2013-12-20 11:54 FAA 8172225092 » 2024935142 p 2/9 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARlNGi3 

fn tha Malter of: 

Mesa Airlines, fnc. * 

··············-················~---

WASHINGTON., D.C. 

FM Docket No. 2013-0121 

FAA Case No, 2011SW070001 

ALJ - Not. Yet Asslgnad 

WITHDRAWAL OF COMPLAINT 

The Federal Aviation Adminlsl!t~!lon {FAA), in ::wcordance with Section i3.215 or the 

Rtlles of Prac!tca in FAA CM! Penalty Ac!tons, hemby withdraws !Is comr}la!nL Thls 

complaint £s Withdrawn because the patti as hava reached a setHement of the case and a 

hearing is no longer .required. Dated this 2Qihday of December20f3, 

ERIC E. ANDERSON 

Regional. Southwe,til ColJ·.~s.'el . • ion · fl 

\,, '··--·' ,.. 

-·· Attorney 

. . (817) 222-5{)7'1 
2013-12-20 11:55 FAA 8172225092 » 2024935142 p 3/9 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby cartify that tim original and one copy of the foregoing Withdrawal of Ct)mp!alnt ha£l 

been ma.ilad December 20, 2013, by Certified Mall~ Return Receipt Rf'Jtuested and fax: to: 

Hearing Docket 

Federal Av!a!lon Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.1N. 

Wash&lglon, D.C. 2!1591 

Attn: Hearing Pocket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright8ul!dlng--Sulla2W1000 

I hereby certify that a copy of !he foregoing Withdrawal of Complaint has boon mailed 

December 20, 2013, by Certlfled Mall-Return Receipt Requested, to the foltO\'Jlng: 

Brian Glllman, Vlc&Presidentand General Counsel 

Mesa A!r Group 

410 North 44th &'treat, Sulle 700 

Phoanlx, AZ 85008 

Christopher Pappaloanou 

Director, l!llal Affairs 

Mesa Air Group 

4t0 North 44lfl Slt'Gal, Suite 700 

Phoenix, Al 85008
Exhibit 10-7-vii

                           Service Agreement Amendment


         Agreement effective January 1, 2001, by and between Penn Independent
Corporation, 420 S. York Road, Hatboro, Pennsylvania, 19040 ("PIC") and
Penn-America Group, Inc., 420 S. York Road, Hatboro, Pennsylvania, 19040
("PAGI").

         WHEREAS, the parties hereto are parties to a Service Agreement dated
August 20, 1993, as most recently amended effective July 1, 2000 (the "Service
Agreement"); and,

         WHEREAS, the Service Agreement provides for the payment by PAGI to PIC
of a monthly expense estimate, which estimate consists of PAGI's share of the
telephone, insurance, building rental, facilities management expenses and
salaries of Irvin Saltzman, Human Resources and Office Services personnel in
connection with their services for PAGI; and,

         WHEREAS, the parties to this Amended Service Agreement desire to
establish the amount of the monthly expense estimate owed by PAGI to PIC
effective January 1, 2001 through December 31, 2001;

         NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, the parties,
intending to be legally bound, agree that effective January 1, 2001 through
December 31, 2001, PAGI will pay to PIC $17,708.33 as a monthly expense
estimate, which estimate constitutes PAGI's share of monthly expenses for the
telephone, insurance, building rental, facilities management expenses and
salaries of Irvin Saltzman, Human Resources, and Office Services personnel.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have entered into this Agreement as of
the date first above written.

PENN INDEPENDENT CORPORATION                PENN-AMERICA GROUP, INC.



BY: ____________________________            BY: ____________________________
Exhibit 10.1

 

ZEP INC.

2010 OMNIBUS INCENTIVE PLAN

 

AMENDMENT TO

RESTRICTED STOCK AWARD AGREEMENTS

 

THIS AMENDMENT, made as of the 10th day of January, 2012 by and between Zep Inc., a Delaware Corporation, (the “Company”) and J. Veronica Biggins (“Grantee”).

 

W · I · T · N · E · S · S · E · T · H      T · H · A · T:

 

WHEREAS, the Company maintains the Zep Inc. 2010 Omnibus Incentive Plan (the “Plan”), and Grantee has received Restricted Stock Awards under the Plan pursuant to the terms and conditions set forth in the Restricted Stock Award Agreements (collectively, the “Award Agreements”); and

 

WHEREAS, the Company granted to Grantee certain awards of restricted stock, subject to, and in accordance with, the restrictions, terms, and conditions set forth in the respective Restricted Stock Award Agreements (the “Award Agreements”) dated as of September 29, 2008 and September 1, 2009; and

 

WHEREAS, the Company desires to amend each of the Award Agreements to modify the Vesting Dates of the restricted shares that have not previously occurred pursuant to each of the Award Agreements;

 

NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the premises, the Award Agreements are hereby amended, effective as of the date first above written, as follows:

 

1.             Restrictions.  Paragraph 2.1 of each of the Award Agreements is hereby amended by deleting the final Vesting Date (September 1, 2012 and September 29, 2012, respectively) in its entirety and substituting January 10, 2012 in lieu thereof.

 

2.             This amendment to the Award Agreements shall be effective as of the date of this Amendment.  Except as hereby modified, the Award Agreements shall remain in full force and effect as originally written.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment as of the date first above written.

 

 

	
Zep   Inc.  
    	
 
    	
Grantee:
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
By:
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT (24)


                PROFESSIONALS INSURANCE COMPANY MANAGEMENT GROUP


         KNOW ALL MEN by these presents that each of the undersigned hereby
make, constitute and appoint W. Peter McCabe, Victor T. Adamo, R. Kevin Clinton
and Annette E. Flood, and each of them, the true and lawful attorney-in-fact of
the undersigned, with full power of substitution and revocation, for and in the
name, place and stead of the undersigned, to execute, deliver and file (with
the Securities and Exchange Commission or any other appropriate governmental
authority) the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Professionals Insurance Company
Management Group for the year ended December 31, 1997, and any and all
amendments thereto; such Form 10-K and each such amendment to be in such form
and to contain such terms and provisions as said attorney or substitute shall
deem necessary or desirable; giving and granting unto said attorney, or to such
person or persons as in any case may be appointed pursuant to the power of
substitution herein given, full power and authority to do and perform any and
every act and thing whatsoever requisite, necessary or, in the opinion of said
attorney or substitute, able to be done in and about the premises as fully and
to all intents and purposes as the undersigned might or could do if personally
present, hereby ratifying and confirming all that said attorney for such
substitute shall lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the undersigned has duly executed this
instrument as of the 20th day of March, 1998.



/s/ Victor T. Adamo               /s/ W. Peter McCabe
--------------------------------  --------------------------------
Victor T. Adamo                       W. Peter McCabe


/s/ Jerry D. Campbell             /s/ John F. McCaffery
--------------------------------  --------------------------------
Jerry D. Campbell                     John F. McCaffery


/s/ R. Kevin Clinton              /s/ Isaac J. Powell
--------------------------------  --------------------------------
R. Kevin Clinton                      Isaac J. Powell


/s/ John F. Dodge, Jr.            /s/ Ann F. Putallaz
--------------------------------  --------------------------------
John F. Dodge, Jr.                    Ann F. Putallaz


/s/ H. Harvey Gass                /s/ Donald S. Young
--------------------------------  --------------------------------
H. Harvey Gass                        Donald S. Young


                                  /s/ William H. Woodhams
                                  --------------------------------
                                      William H. Woodhams
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, June 29, 2017.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, June 29, 2017

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A17D0510. WASEEM DAKER v. SHERRY BLAND, CLERK, TATTNALL COUNTY 

SUPERIOR COURT.

Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby DENIED.

LC NUMBERS:

2017NH2
##### 



EXHIBIT 10.31
 STOCK OPTION AGREEMENT
( Nonstatutory Stock Options  2004 Stock Incentive Plan )
  WITNESSETH
      Grant of Options
 Terms and Conditions of the Options
 Exercise Price
 Exercise of the Options




---



##### 



Option Term
 Method of Exercise
 Tax Withholding
    Adjustments upon Changes in the Common Shares
   Acceleration of Options upon Change in Control




---



##### 



Assignability of Options
  Exercise After Termination of Employment
      
          Section 11.05 of the Plan Inapplicable.
 Buy Out of Options
 Restrictions on Transfers of Common Shares
  Rights of the Optionee
 Governing Law
 Rights and Remedies Cumulative




---



##### 



Captions
 Severability
 Number and Gender
 Entire Agreement
 Successors and Assigns of the Company




---



##### 



Company:AIRNET SYSTEMS, INC.By:
    
    /s/ Gary W. QualmannGary W. QualmannChief Financial Officer, Treasurer and SecretaryOptionee:/s/ Bruce D. ParkerBruce
    
    D. ParkerStreet AddressCity
    

    
    State
    
    
    
    

    Zip CodeTelephone Number
EXHIBIT 21
----------



     SUBSIDIARIES


     1. Fine Host Services Corporation, a Delaware corporation.
     2. Fanfare, Inc., a Massachusetts corporation.
     3. Creative Food Management, Inc., an Ohio corporation.
     4. Northwest Food Service, Inc., an Idaho corporation.
     5. PCS Holdings Corp., a North Carolina corporation (formerly known as
           HCS Management Corp.).
     6. Republic Management Corp. of Massachusetts, a Massachusetts corporation.
     7. Serv-Rite  Corporation,  a New York  corporation.
     8. Best, Inc., a Minnesota  corporation.
     9. Ideal Management Services, Inc., a New York corporation.
    10. Sun West Services, Inc., a New Mexico corporation.
    11. Service Dynamics Corp., a New Jersey corporation.
    12. Statewide Catering, Inc., a New York corporation.
    13. Global Food Services, Inc., a Florida corporation.
    14. Total Food Service Direction, Inc., a Florida corporation.

































                                       33
|   | (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. |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| /s/      ROBERT F. MANGANO |
|----------------------------|
| Name:                      | Robert      F. Mangano |
| Title:                     | President      and Chief Executive Officer |
| Date:                      | August      14, 2008 |
|                       |   |
|                       |   |
|                       |   |
| /s/      JOSEPH M. REARDON |
| Name:                      | Joseph      M. Reardon |
| Title:                     | Senior      Vice President and |
|                       | Treasurer |
| Date:                      | August      14, 2008 |

----
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED December 17, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-20479 Conference Calendar

CHARLES WILSON, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus KENNETH L. NASH, State Counsel for Offenders, Defendant-Appellee.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:04-CV-1091

-------------------- Before KING, Chief Judge, and DeMOSS and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Charles Wilson, Texas prisoner #521150, moves for appointment of counsel and in forma pauperis (IFP) status on appeal. Wilson’s IFP motion is a challenge to the district court’s decision that his appeal is not taken in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor , 117 F.3d 197, 201 (5th Cir. 1997). Wilson argues that the district court erred in dismissing as frivolous his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against Kenneth Nash, Wilson’s former defense attorney, and a staff attorney for theNo. 04-20479 -2- State Counsel of Offenders. A public defender is not a state actor for purposes of § 1983 liability “when performing a lawyer’s traditional functions as counsel to a defendant in a criminal proceeding.” Polk County v. Dodson , 454 U.S. 312, 325 (1981). Moreover, Wilson’s claim is barred because he is seeking to recover damages for an allegedly unconstitutional sentence that has not been reversed on appeal or in a postconviction proceeding. See Heck v. Humphrey , 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994). Wilson has not shown that the district court erred in certifying that an appeal would not be taken in good faith. See Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). Accordingly, Wilson’s motion for leave to proceed IFP is DENIED, and his appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See Baugh , 117 F.3d at 202 n. 24; 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2. Wilson’s motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED. The district court’s dismissal of Wilson’s civil rights complaint counts as a strike for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), and the dismissal of this appeal as frivolous also counts as a strike for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v.
Hammons , 103 F.3d 383, 385-87 (5th Cir. 1996). Wilson is WARNED that if he accumulates three strikes, he may not proceed IFP in any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
MOTIONS DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTIONS WARNING ISSUED.No. 04-20479 -3-
* P ursuant to 5 TH C IR. R. 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_______________ No. 97-50205

_______________

CATHY KELLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant,
VERSUS
AMERICAN HEYER-SCHULTE CORPORATION, formerly known as Heyer-Schulte Corporation, et al., Defendants,
BAXTER HEALTHCARE HEALTHCARE CORPORATION and BAXTER INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendants-Appellees.

_________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas

(SA-93-CV-145)

_________________________ March 5, 1998 Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, SMITH and DUHÉ, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

We are comp elled to notice potential problems with our jurisdiction, sua sponte if necessary. We have asked the parties2

to brief the question whether we have jurisdiction in this case. Having reviewed the briefs and heard oral argument on the question
of jurisdic tion, and having consulted the applicable law and pertinent portions of the record, we conclude that we are without jurisdiction to consider this appeal under the binding authority of
Ryan v. Occidental Petroleum Corp. , 577 F.2d 298, 301-02 (5th Cir.
1978). Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED. There being no final, appealable judgment, this matter remains in the district court, which retains jurisdiction to revisit its rulings if appropriate. In this regard, we call to the district court’s attention that on
January 20, 1998, the en banc court heard oral argument in No. 95-20492, Moore v. Ashland Chem., Inc. Also, on December 15,
1997, the Supreme Court decided General Elec. Co. v. Joiner , 118 S. Ct. 512 (1997). The district court may wish to await the

en banc decision in Moore before deciding whether to address any of
its rulings herein. We intimate absolutely no view as to what action, if any, the district court should take in regard to these matters, as we are without jurisdiction.
APPEAL DISMISSED.
#### J. Morris ANDERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STEERS, SULLIVAN, McNAMAR & ROGERS and Ruth E. Meyer, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 92-3743.

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Sept. 17, 1993.

POSNER, Circuit Judge.

This matter comes before the court for its consideration of the “APPELLANT’S PETITION FOR A REHEARING ON THE COURT’S ORDER OF AUGUST 13TH, 1993 IMPOSING SANCTIONS AND DOUBLE COSTS” filed herein on 8/23/93, by the pro se appellant. On consideration thereof,

IT IS ORDERED that “APPELLANT’S PETITION FOR A REHEARING ON THE *267COURT’S ORDER OF AUGUST 13TH, 1993 IMPOSING SANCTIONS AND DOUBLE COSTS ON APPELLANT” is DENIED.