alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
SERVED APRIL 14,2010 

: L! 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 


WASHINGTON, DC 


IN THE MATTER OF 


BUSH AIR CARGO, INC. 


FAA DOCKET NO. CPlOALOOO1 


(Civil Penalty Action) 


DMS NO. F AA-2010-0311 


NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT OF PROCEEDING 

This proceeding (heretofore designated as Case No. 2009AL7030119) has been assigned to 

Admihistrative Law Judge Richard C, Goodwin. All future pleadings and other communications 

regarding this proceeding shall be served on the Judge, the FAA Hearing Docket, and the other 

persons on the attached Service List. 

Ro ie A. Yoder 

Chief Administrative L'''. X,-",",ITI 

Attachment - Service List 
FAA Docket No. CPIOAL0001 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

SERVICE LIST 

ORIGINAL & ONE COpy 

Hearing Docket 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Att: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building Room 20141 

ONE COPY 

Brent M. Tieman, President 

Bush Air Cargo, Inc., Respondent 

P.O. Box 93144 

Anchorage, AK 99509-3144 

TEL: 907-277-7657 

FAX: 907-274-1725 

Glenn H. Brown, Complainant's Counsel 

Senior Attorney 

Office ofthe Regional Counsel, AAL-7 

Alaskan Region 

Federal Aviation Administration 

222 West 7th Avenue, Box 14 

Anchorage,AK 99513-7587 

TEL: 907-271-5269 

FAX: 907-271-2800 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

Office ofHearings, M-20 

U.S. Department ofTransportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

East Building Ground Floor, Room E12-320 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

TEL: ·202-366-2139 Attorney-Advisor 

202- 366-5121 Legal Assistant 

FAX: 202- 366-7536 

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person orby expedited courier, use the followmg address: 

Hearing Docket, Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building - Room 

2014, Washington, DC 20591, Att: Heru:ing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.
Memo to Docket No. EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0021

Date: November 14, 2012

Subject: History of Arizona State Implementation Plan (SIP) Submittals Under the 

Regional Haze Rule 

Date Event Docket 

Index 

No./Citation

July 1, 

1999

EPA promulgates Regional Haze Rule (RHR) 64 FR 35714

A.5

December 

23, 2003

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) submits 

Arizona Section 309 SIP (not including 309(g)) 

B.16

December 

31, 2004

ADEQ submits revision to Arizona Section 309 SIP (not including 

309(g))

B.17

February

18, 2005

D.C. Circuit grants petition for review in Center for Energy & 

Economic Development v. EPA (“CEED”)

398 F.3d 

653 

Oct. 13, 

2006

EPA promulgates revisions to section 309 in response to CEED 

decision

71 FR 60612 

December 

17, 2007

Deadline for submission of revised 309 SIPs (or 308 SIPs) -

December 

24, 2008

ADEQ re-submits its prior 309 submittals (without provisions to 

address 309(d)(4) or 309(g)) 

B.19

January 15, 

2009

EPA issues Finding of Failure To Submit SIPs Required by the RHR

for 37 states including Arizona 

76 FR 75544

A.17

January 

2011

“FIP clock” expires for Regional Haze plans covered by 2009 Finding 

of Failure To Submit; EPA receives a notice of intent to sue for failure 

to promulgate Regional Haze FIPs or approve Regional Haze SIPs

-

February

28, 2011

ADEQ submits 308 SIP B.1

August 

2011 

EPA is sued for failure to promulgate Regional Haze FIPs or approve 

Regional Haze SIPs

-
<PAGE>
 
                                                                      Exhibit 23


                   [LETTERHEAD OF ANDERSON ASSOCIATES, LLP]



    We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement
of BCSB Bankcorp, Inc. on Form S-8 (File No. 333-53295) of our report dated
December 3, 1998 on our audits of the consolidated financial statements of BCSB
Bankcorp, Inc. as of September 30, 1998 and 1997, and for each of the two years
in the period ended September 30, 1998, which report has been incorporated by
reference in BCSB Bankcorp, Inc.'s Annual Report on Form 10-KSB filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.



/s/ Anderson Associates LLP


Baltimore, Maryland
December 29, 1998
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-30798

Summary Calendar

HERSY JONES, JR., 

 Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

LOUISIANA STATE SUPREME COURT; LOUISIANA ATTORNEY 

DISCIPLINARY BOARD; ROBERT S. KENNEDY, Individually and in his 

official capacity as Deputy Disciplinary Counsel; CHARLES B. 

PLATTSMIER, individually and in his official capacity as Chief Disciplinary 

Counsel, 

 Defendants – Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

No. 5:15-CV-2766

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, ELROD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Plaintiff-Appellant Hersy Jones, Jr. appeals the district court’s dismissal 

of his claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman 

doctrine. See Liedtke v. State Bar of Tex., 18 F.3d 315, 317 (5th Cir. 1994) 

 

* Pursuant to Fifth Circuit 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 Fifth Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 17, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 17-30798 Document: 00514686372 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/17/2018
No. 17-30798

2

(“[The Rooker-Feldman] doctrine directs that federal district courts lack 

jurisdiction to entertain collateral attacks on state court judgments.”). We find 

no reversible error in the district court’s conclusion that the Rooker-Feldman 

doctrine deprived it of jurisdiction to hear Jones’s claims. 

Even if some of Jones’s claims can somehow be characterized as a 

general, facial challenge to the constitutionality of the disciplinary scheme, he 

should have raised those issues during the state court proceeding. See 

Musslewhite v. State Bar of Tex., 32 F.3d 942, 946 (5th Cir. 1994) (“[F]ederal 

jurisdiction does not lie for claims that were not presented first to the state 

court in the disciplinary proceeding.”). 

Accordingly, we AFFIRM.1 

 

1 We also determine that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the 

motion for recusal. See Brown v. Oil States Skagit Smatco, 664 F.3d 71, 80 (5th Cir. 2011) 

(“We review a denial of a motion to recuse for abuse of discretion.”). 

 Case: 17-30798 Document: 00514686372 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/17/2018
EX-10.7 AGREEMENT IN CONNECTION WITH PERSONAL USE



 






Exhibit 10.7




Effective February 28, 2006




SYNOVUS FINANCIAL CORP./TOTAL SYSTEM SERVICES, INC.

Personal Use of Company Aircraft



Key Executives are each allowed a maximum number of hours of personal use of company aircraft each
calendar year as set forth below.



Personal use of company aircraft by Key Executives includes non-business flights upon which the Key
Executive and his or her non-business guests are the only passengers aboard the aircraft and also
includes non-business flights upon which the Key Executive is not aboard the aircraft but his or
her non-business guests are the only passengers aboard the aircraft. Personal use must be
scheduled when aircraft are not scheduled for business use.



Personal use of company aircraft is calculated using “block hours,” as opposed to “flight hours,”
and includes “deadhead legs.”



For purposes of calculating the number of hours of personal use of company aircraft, each block
hour of turbo-prop usage shall equal “one hour of personal usage” and each block hour of jet usage
shall equal “five hours of personal usage.” Usage of less than whole hours shall be recorded
proportionately. De minimis overages may be approved by Sanders Griffith to reflect unforeseen
delays (such as traffic and weather delays) and other scheduling issues.



Personal use of company aircraft by Key Executives and their non-business guests is tracked and the
value reported for tax purposes for the Key Executive.



The following Executives are designated as eligible for the indicated number of hours of personal
use of company aircraft:




Synovus



Jim Blanchard—Synovus Chairman—30 hours of turbo-prop use/6 hours of jet use



Richard Anthony—Synovus President and CEO-30 hours of turbo-prop use/6 hours of jet use



Sanders Griffith—Synovus General Counsel—20 hours of turbo-prop use/4 hours of jet use



Lee Lee James—Synovus Vice Chairman—20 hours of turbo-prop use/ 4 hours of jet use



Fred Green—Synovus Vice Chairman—20 hours of turbo-prop use/4 hours of jet use



Tommy
Prescott—Synovus CFO—20 hours of turbo-prop use/4 hours of jet use




 









 








TSYS



Phil Tomlinson—TSYS Chairman and CEO—30 hours of turbo-prop use/6 hours of jet use



Rick Ussery—Consulting Agreement (expires on 6/30/06)—20 hours of turbo-prop use/4 hours of jet use



Troy Woods—TSYS President and COO—30 hours of turbo-prop use/6 hours of jet use



Bill
Pruett—Senior Executive Vice President—20 hours of turbo-prop use/4 hours of jet use



Ken
Tye—Senior Executive Vice President and CIO—20 hours of turbo-prop use/4 hours of jet use



Jim
Lipham—Senior Executive Vice President and CFO—20 hours of turbo-prop use/4 hours of jet use
#### Leon "Buck” PATTON, Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky, Appellee.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Dec. 17, 1954.

Tom P. Senff, Mt. Sterling, for appellant.

J. D. Buckman, Atty. Gen.,- Earle VI Powell, Asst. Atty. Gen., J. Douglas Graham, Campton, M. E. Strange, Stanton, for appellee.

CLAY, Commissioner.

Defendant was convicted of the offense of maliciously cutting and wounding another with intent to kill and sentenced to., five years in the state; penitentiary... He presents two grounds ;for. reversal of-¡ the-, judgment. . '.

Following an automobile áccidént, ' appellant was taken intp custody, by a state policeman for drunkenness in a public place' and was transported'to jail. There appellant and the state policeman 'engaged in an altercation and appellant stabbed the offi-' cer. The propriety- of.; submitting .the case to the jury is not in question.

*842When appellant' was testifying he was asked by the Commonwealth’s attorney if he had been convicted of a felony, to which he answered in the affirmative. He was then asked, “How many times?” He answered, “Two times I reckon.”" No other reference to this conviction appears in the record. Appellant contends that the court erred in not admonishing the jury that these prior convictions could be considered only for the purpose of affecting his credibility as a witness.

The record fails to show appellant asked for such admonition. His brief quotes an instruction' covering this matter which allegedly was offered, but no such instruction or other request, appears in the clerk’s record or the bill of exceptions.

While the defendant has the right to insist that such an admonition be given, the failure of the court to do so is not necessarily such an error as would require reversal. As a general rule errors not brought, to the attention of the trial judge are not available on appeal to' this Court. Ramsey v. Commonwealth, Ky., 1954, 267 S.W.2d 730. It has been held that the right to an admonition may be waived by the accused in not requesting that it be given. Allen v. Commonwealth, 302 Ky. 546, 195 S.W.2d 96. In the light of the record before us we do not find the error, which was not called to the attention of the court, of such a prejudicial nature as to require reversal.

Appellant next contends that the jury should" have been instructed that if the arrest was illegal appellant had the right" to stab the officer in resisting it. There are two answers to this contention. In the first place, appellant had already submitted to the arrest, and therefore his actions could not be characterized as resistance. Secondly, the court fairly submitted to the jury the defendant’s right to repel an assault or battery by the officer and also the right to stab the officer in .self-defense.

The judgment is affirmed. ■
-86 -84 -82 -80 -78 -76 -74

36 38 40 42



### ★

▲ ▲ ▲ ▲



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 1000 1500 2000 1000 18 12 06 00 06/21 

### NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

## Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 21 Jun 06

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 38.86 N 77.06 WMeters AGL
EXHIBIT 32.2

            CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         In connection with the Annual Report of Circle Group Holdings, Inc. on
Form 10-KSB for the year ending December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Annual Report"), I, Dana L.
Dabney, Chief Financial Officer of the Circle Group Holdings, Inc. certify,
pursuant Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

                 (1) The Annual 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 Annual Report fairly
         presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
         of operations of Circle Group Holdings, Inc.

Dated:  March 31, 2005                             /s/ Dana L. Dabney
                                                   ------------------
                                                   Dana L. Dabney
                                                   Chief Financial Officer
                                                   (Principal Financial Officer)
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

A LBERTO PUENTES

,

Appellant,

v.

LILIA NA ROD A RTE

,

Appellee. §

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 21

- 00 101

- CV

Appeal from the

388 th Court District Court

o f El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 2018DCM8191 )

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes the appeal should be

dismissed for wan t o f jurisdiction , in accordance with the opinion of this Court. We therefore

dismiss the appeal. This decision shall be certified below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 2 1S T OF JU LY

, 2021.

YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Chief Justice

Before Rodriguez, C.J., Palafox, and Alley, JJ.
<PAGE>
                                                                               .
                                                                               .
                                                                               .




                           EXHIBIT 99.4 -- SCHEDULE II

               EXTENDICARE HEALTH SERVICES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

                        VALUATION AND QUALIFYING ACCOUNTS
                                 (IN THOUSANDS)
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                             ADDITIONS                         SUBTRACTIONS
                                                  -------------------------------     ------------------------------

                                                    PROVISIONS          FROM                              ACCOUNTS
   ALLOWANCE FOR                    BALANCE AT      FOR LOSSES       ACQUISITION                         WRITTEN OFF       BALANCE
   --------------                    BEGINNING      ON ACCOUNTS          OR               FROM             NET OF          AT END
 DOUBTFUL ACCOUNTS                   OF PERIOD      RECEIVABLE      DIVESTITURE        DIVESTITURE       RECOVERIES       OF PERIOD
 -----------------                   ---------      ----------      -----------        -----------       ----------       ---------
<S>                                   <C>           <C>             <C>                <C>               <C>             <C>
Year ended December 31, 1998 .......  18,926          12,698            4,683            2,724             7,684           25,899
Year ended December 31, 1999 .......  25,899          11,905               --               --            12,855           24,949
Year ended December 31, 2000 .......  24,949          17,945            2,367               --            28,932           16,329
Year ended December 31, 2001 .......  16,329           8,945            3,515               --            14,212           14,577
Year ended December 31, 2002 .......  14,577          10,937               --               --            16,205            9,309
</TABLE>
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-41686 

Conference Calendar

 

MICHAEL TAYLOR TREVINO,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

GARY JOHNSON, Executive Director, Texas Department

of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division; DAVID 

STACKS, Senior Warden; JOHNNY ENGLISH, Lieutenant;

DAVID K. LIBBY, Correctional Officer,

Defendants-Appellees.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 9:03-CV-149

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

Before BARKSDALE, DeMOSS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Michael Taylor Trevino, Texas inmate # 684815, appeals from

the dismissal of his civil rights complaint, filed pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983, as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Trevino’s

claim that his placement in administrative segregation violated

his procedural due process rights relies on a legally nonexistent

interest and is, therefore, frivolous. See Sandin v. Conner, 515

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

June 23, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 03-41686

-2-

U.S. 472, 483-86 (1995); Harper v. Showers, 174 F.3d 716, 718

(5th Cir. 1999); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).

Although Trevino also alleged that his placement in

administrative segregation violated his Eighth Amendment rights, 

he has abandoned any such claim by failing to brief it

adequately. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir.

1993). 

Trevino’s racial profiling argument is construed as an equal

protection claim. See Royal v. Tombone, 141 F.3d 596, 599 n.4

(5th Cir. 1998). Because Trevino did not allege that similarly

situated individuals had been treated differently and because the

record shows that Trevino was placed in administrative

segregation following a fight in a crowded day room, this claim

is frivolous. See Muhammad v. Lynaugh, 966 F.2d 901, 903 (5th

Cir. 1992). Trevino’s arguments that his placement in

administrative segregation violated prison policy and Texas law

against racial profiling do not state constitutional violations. 

See Hernandez v. Estelle, 788 F.2d 1154, 1158 (5th Cir. 1986);

Giovanni v. Lynn, 48 F.3d 908, 912-13 (5th Cir. 1995). The

district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

The district court’s dismissal of Trevino’s complaint as

frivolous and this court’s affirmance count as a strike for

purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103

F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th Cir. 1996). Trevino is WARNED that if he

accumulates three strikes, he may not proceed IFP in any civil
No. 03-41686

-3-

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).

AFFIRMED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

February 7, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-41052

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOSE GUADALUPE GOMEZ-GONZALEZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas 

USDC No. 2:06-CR-90-1

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

Before REAVLEY, JOLLY, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Jose Guadalupe

Gomez-Gonzalez raises arguments that are foreclosed by

Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998),

which held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and

not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for

summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district

court is AFFIRMED.
#### Bert F. HOWELL, Appellant, v. STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 23444.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 30, 1946.

Ernest S. Goens, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

The appellant was convicted of the offense of driving while intoxicated and assessed a fine of $50, from which he appeals.

The appeal is presented on three bills of exception. Bill No. 1 contains a number of questions and answers. Under the rules this bill will not be considered. Bill No. 2 is in the same condition.

Bill of Exception No. 3 complains of the evidence of the witness Charles Anderson, on the ground that he stated a conclusion and that “ * * * he does not have any qualifications to testify to that.” This bill is qualified by the court who refers to the statement of facts and includes in his qualification statements of the same witness a? to his experience, all of which, we think, amply qualify the witness, under the rule, to give the evidence.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following meeting:

*Name:*                        Advisory Panel for Neuroscience (1158).                    

*Date/Time:*                        April 26-28, 2000; 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.                    

*Place:*                        Room 330, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA.                    

*Type of Meeting:*                        Part-Open.                    

*Contact Person:*                        Dr. Sonya Sobrian, Program Director, Behavioral Neuroscience; Dr. Roy White, Program Director, Computational Neuroscience; Division of                         Start Printed Page 6243                        Integrative Biology and Neuroscience, Suite 685, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, VA 22230. (703) 306-1416.                    

*Purpose of Meeting:*                        To provide advice and recommendations concerning proposals submitted to NSF for financial support.                    

*Minutes:*                        May be obtained from the contact person listed above.                    

*Agenda:*                        Open Session: April 28, 2000; 10:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m., to discuss goals and assessment procedures. Closed Session: April 26-27; 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.; April 28, 9:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m., and 11:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. To review and evaluate Behavioral Computational Neuroscience proposals as part of the selection process for awards.                    

*Reason for Closing:*                        The proposals being reviewed include information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including technical information; financial data, such as salaries; and personal information concerning individuals associated with the proposals. These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c) (4) and (6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act.                    

Dated: February 1, 2000.

Karen J. York,

Committee Meeting Officer.

[FR Doc. 00-2736  Filed 2-7-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7555-01-M