alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Gormas, Michael (OST) 

From: 

Sent: 

To: 

Cc: 

Subject: 

Follow Up Flag: 

Flag Status: 

Dear Mr. Gormas, 

Rick Olson <citymagistrate@cityofpage.org> 

Monday, December 22, 2014 7:10 PM 

Gormas, Michael (OST) 

Bill Diak; Lana Shugart 

City of Page-EAS Extension 

Follow up 

Completed 

The City of Page does not have an objection to a four week EAS application extension calculated to provide interested 

carriers time to evaluate due diligence considerations. 

Rick Olson 

Airport Director 

City of Page 

928-660-2742 

1 

•.. ~ ...... . ... 

'.,,::: 

J,. ·' 

~- ., . .. ; . 

!""• 
BEFORE THE 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Essential Air Service at 

KINGMAN, ARIZONA 

PAGE, ARIZONA 

PRESCOTT, ARIZONA 

SHOW LOW, ARIZONA 

Under49U.S.C. §41731 etseq. 

) 

) 

) 

) Docket OST-1996-1899 

) Docket OST -1997-2694 

) Docket OST -1996-1899 

) Docket OST -1998-4409 

) 

) 

REQUEST FOR SUBMISSION DEADLINE EXTENTION 

BY MOKULELE FLIGHT SERVICE INC. 

Correspondence with regard to this document should be addressed to: 

Ron Hansen 

CEO 

Moku1ele Flight Service Inc. 

73-350 U'u Street 

Kailua-Kona, HI 96740 

Telephone: 808-840-9002 

Fax: 808-326-1266 

Email: ron.hansen@mokulelehawaii.com 

Moku1ele Flight Service Inc. respectfully requests a four week extension of the submission 

deadline date of December 22, 2014 as set by the Department of Transportation in its' 

solicitation of carrier proposals in the above mentioned cities to on or about January 20, 2014 (as 

Monday January 19 is a Federal holiday). Mokulele requests the additional time to complete its 

necessary due diligence on these markets and complete negotiations with potential codeshare 

partners and aircraft manufacturers. 

Submitted: December 19,2014 

Ron Hansen 

CEO 

Mokulele Flight Service Inc.
p. 1 

# OAR Box 1828 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 171 ) M-K-(C)- 7 Docket Number: 

# A-83-2 7

Printed 11/12/200811:12:54 AM Sheet 171 of 325P. 2

II-K-(C)- 7 ENCLOSE D COP YO F IFCA

M DOCUMENTATION . Lette r fro

m E . Medine , EE

A t o E.C . Fox , Oa kRidg e Nationa l Lab . Octobe r 3 , 1980 . THI S INFORMATION

CA N B E FOUNDI

N DOCKE T A-79-02 , ITE

M II-K-(C)- 7
### I N THE UNI TED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FI F TH CI RCUI T

No. 12-51052 Summary Calendar

EULOGIO VALENTIN TORRES-ORELLANA, Petitioner–Appellant,

v. U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A ; B UREAU O F P RISONS; WARD E N , R E E V E S COUNTY DETENT I O N CENTER III; G EO G ROUP; DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, Respondents–Appellees.

A ppeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 4:12-CV-75

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, OWEN, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Eulogio Valentin Torres-Orellana, federal prisoner # 5 5895-112, an alien against whom the Bureau o f Immigration a nd Customs Enforcement has issued

a detainer subjecting him to im m ediate removal from the United S tates upon release from Bureau o f Prisons (BOP) custody, moves this court to proceed in forma pauperis ( IFP) to appeal the denial of his 2 8 U

. S.C. § 2241 petition U n i t e d S t a te s C o u r t o f A p p e al s

F i f t h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D May7, 2013 Ly l e W . Cay ce Clerk

* Purs uant to 5 T H C I R

. R

. 47. 5, the court has d eterm ined that this op inion should not be p ublis hed and is not p reced ent excep t und er the lim ited circum s tances s et forth in 5 T H C I R

. R. 47. 5. 4. Case: 12-51052 Document: 00512233365 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/07/2013No. 12-51052

challenging the BOP’s exc l u s i on of him f rom rehabilitation p r ograms and halfway houses. His arguments are f orec l o s ed by this court’s decision in Gallegos-Hernandez v. United States , 688 F.3d 190 , 1 9 4

- 9 6 ( 5th Cir.), cert. denied , 133 S. Ct. 561 (2012). Accordingly, Torres-Orellana’s motion to p roceed IFP is DENIED, and his appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See 5 T H C I R
. R. 42.2.

2 Case: 12-51052 Document: 00512233365 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/07/2013
#### HILL v. STATE.

No. 25321.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 23, 1951.

No attorney on appeal for appellant.

George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

The appeal is from a conviction for the offense of driving a motor vehicle while intoxicated. The jury assessed the punishment at $50 fine.

There is neither a statement of facts nor hill of exception brought forward with the record on this appeal. All the proceedings appear regular.

There being no question presented for review, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
1

MEMORANDUM

Date: July 30, 2012

Subject: EPA

– EMI

– Felman Corporation Teleconference Summary ( July 2 , 2012)

From: Beth Friedman, EC/R Incorporated

To: Conrad Chin, OAQPS/SPPD/MMG (D243

- 02)

I. Introduction:

A conference call was held on July 2 , 201 2 to discuss the possibility of testing additional pollutants, performing fenceline monitoring, and hosting plant visits at Eramat Marietta (EMI) and Felman Production . This memo provides an overview of the issues discussed.

II. Participants:

Beveridge & Di amond : Amy Lincoln (counsel for Felman) Jones Day : John Rego (counsel for EMI)
EPA/ OAQPS : Conrad Chin, C huck French, Ray Merrill EC/R Incorporated (Contractor for EPA) : Beth Friedman , Brad Nelson

III. Summary of Discussions:

The following topics were discussed

.

EPA asked the plants if it would be possible in include testing for polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and dioxins in the July 2012 compliance tests. Both plants replied that there is not enough time to change the test plan and still obtain the
needed co mpliance tests in this short period. The test contractors are already booked, and there is not enough time to conduct more testing given their availability. The plants agreed that they could conduct testing for PCBs and dioxins in the proposed next roun d of tests to occur early in 2013, if EPA obtains an extension

t o the court

- ordered promulgation date. Then, additional time would be needed to transmit the results to EPA and for EPA to analyze the data and prepare the
final rule. EPA asked if the plants were still considering fenceline monitoring as an alternative option and if they could collect “baseline” data. The plants responded2 that they would need more information to respond to this question. EPA agreed to prepare a proposed fenceline monitoring protocol for review by the plants.

EPA asked the plants if an EPA observer could attend one or both tests. The plants said that this would not be a problem

. EPA said that Mr. Chin and Mr. French were planning to meet with local community groups in Oh io (that meeting has since been postponed). While in the area, they might want to visit one or both plants. Also, the Sierra Club representatives would also like to visit the plants. The plants responded that EPA should put in a formal request regarding t he Sierra Club visitors. The plants said that they would like to have more certainty regarding an extension past December 2012.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 209 (Friday, October 27, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 64456]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-27625]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[CA-067-1050-ET, CACA 39853]


Public Land Order No. 7469; Withdrawal of Public Land for the 
Indian Pass Area; California

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Public Land Order.

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

SUMMARY: This order withdraws 9,360.74 acres of public land from 
surface entry and mining for a period of 20 years for the Bureau of 
Land Management to protect the Native American values, cultural 
resources, and visual quality of the Indian Pass area.

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 27, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Duane Marti, BLM, California State 
Office, 2800 Cottage Way, Sacramento, California 95825-1887, 916-978-
4675.
    By virtue of the authority vested in the Secretary of the Interior 
by Section 204 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 
43 U.S.C. 1714 (1994), it is ordered as follows:
    1. Subject to valid existing rights, the following described public 
land is hereby withdrawn from settlement, sale, location, or entry 
under the general land laws, including the United States mining laws 
(30 U.S.C. Ch. 2 (1994)), for the Bureau of Land Management to protect 
the Native American values, cultural resources, and visual quality of 
the Indian Pass area:

San Bernardino Meridian

T. 13 S., R. 20 E.,
    Sec. 25, E\1/2\.
T. 13 S., R. 21 E.,
    Sec. 21, NE\1/4\, E\1/2\NW\1/4\, and SW\1/4\;
    Sec. 28, NW\1/4\ and NW\1/4\SW\1/4\;
    Secs. 29 to 33, inclusive.
T. 14 S., R. 20 E.,
    Sec. 1, E\1/2\;
    Sec. 11, E\1/2\;
    Secs. 12 to 14, inclusive.
T. 14 S., R. 21 E.,
    Sec. 4, lots 1 and 2 of NW\1/4\ and NW\1/4\SW\1/4\;
    Sec. 5, lots 1 and 2 of NE\1/4\, lots 1 and 2 of NW\1/4\, and 
S\1/2\;
    Sec. 6, lots 1 and 2 of NE\1/4\, lots 1 and 2 of NW\1/4\, lots 1 
and 2 of SW\1/4\, and SE\1/4\;
    Sec. 7, lots 1 and 2 of NW\1/4\, lots 1 and 2 of SW\1/4\, and 
E\1/2\;
    Sec. 8, N\1/2\NE\1/4\ and W\1/2\;
    Sec. 17, NW\1/4\NW\1/4\;
    Sec. 18, lots 1 and 2 of NW\1/4\ and NE\1/4\.

    The area described contains 9,360.74 acres in Imperial County.

    2. This withdrawal will expire 20 years from the effective date of 
this order unless, as a result of a review conducted before the 
expiration date pursuant to Section 204(f) of the Federal Land Policy 
and Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C. 1714(f) (1994), the Secretary 
determines that the withdrawal shall be extended.

    Dated: October 20, 2000.
Sylvia V. Baca,
Assistant Secretary of the Interior.
[FR Doc. 00-27625 Filed 10-26-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-40-P
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 32 (b)

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 Northland Cable Television, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Form 10-K"), I, Gary
Jones, President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that;

          (1)  The Form 10-K fully complies with the requirements of Section 13
               (a) or (15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.
               78m or 78(d)); and

          (2)  The information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents in all
               material respects, the financial condition and results of
               operations of the Company.

     DATE: 3-30-04

/s/  GARY S. JONES
     --------------------------------
     Gary S. Jones
     President

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Northland Cable Television, Inc. and will be retained by Northland
Cable Television, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request.
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION.

UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL

AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.

IN THE

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent,

v.

CHRISTOPHER MICHAEL NORRIS, Petitioner.

No. 1 CA-CR 18-0707 PRPC

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Yavapai County

No. P1300CR201301146

The Honorable Patricia A. Trebesch, Judge

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL

Yavapai County Attorney’s Office, Prescott

By Joshua I. Fisher

Counsel for Respondent

Christopher Michael Norris, Buckeye

Petitioner

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Kent E. Cattani delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Presiding Judge David D. Weinzweig and Judge James P. Beene joined. 

FILED 3-28-2019
STATE v. NORRIS

Decision of the Court

2

C A T T A N I, Judge:

¶1 Christopher Norris petitions for review from the superior 

court’s dismissal of his of-right petition for post-conviction relief. For 

reasons that follow, we grant review but deny relief.

¶2 Norris pleaded guilty to armed robbery, burglary in the first 

degree, kidnapping, and aggravated assault with a dangerous instrument. 

He was sentenced to a combination of concurrent and consecutive terms of 

imprisonment totaling 52 years.

¶3 Norris timely filed an of-right notice of post-conviction relief,

and counsel was appointed to represent him. Counsel filed a petition for 

post-conviction relief raising two issues: (1) the factual bases for Norris’s 

guilty pleas to the kidnapping and aggravated assault offenses were 

insufficient, and (2) trial counsel was ineffective for allowing Norris to 

plead guilty to those offenses with an insufficient factual basis. The 

superior court dismissed his petition, finding that there was a sufficient 

factual basis for his guilty pleas based on accomplice liability and that he 

did not set forth a colorable claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.

¶4 Norris then filed a pro se petition for review, but the petition

raises five new arguments not raised before: (1) actual innocence, see Ariz. 

R. Crim. P. 32.1(h); (2) illegal sentence (enhancement with prior 

convictions), see Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.1(c); (3) ineffective assistance of counsel 

for failing to object to the enhanced sentence, see Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.1(a);

(4) ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to object to consecutive 

sentences, see id.; and (5) prosecutorial misconduct based on the allegedly 

illegal sentence enhancements and consecutive sentences, see id. We do not 

address these issues because Norris did not first present them to the 

superior court, and a petition for review may not include new arguments 

not first presented in the petition for post-conviction relief. Ariz. R. Crim. 

P. 32.9(c)(4)(B)(ii), (D); State v. Ramirez, 126 Ariz. 464, 468 (App. 1980).

¶5 Accordingly, we grant review but deny relief.
Document Headings

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

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. RP01-48-000]

Take notice that on October 13, 2000, Egan Hub Partners, L.P. (Egan) tendered for filing in compliance with Order No. 587-L, Final Rule, issued on June 30, 2000, in Docket No. RM96-1-014, and the Commission's subsequent order granting clarification issued on September 28, 2000 in Docket No. RM96-1-016. The order granting clarification stated that “pipelines seeking an exemption from the imbalance trading requirement are required to file within 15 days of the order to show why they should not be required to implement imbalance trading.”

Egan states that copies of the filing were mailed to all affected customers of Egan and interested state commissions.

Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed on or before October 25, 2000. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/​online/​rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance).

David P. Boergers,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00-27270 Filed 10-23-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               Sep-30-2000
<CASH>                                           9,599
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  549,505
<ALLOWANCES>                                    18,300
<INVENTORY>                                    428,239
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               987,074
<PP&E>                                         118,119
<DEPRECIATION>                                  79,493
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,785,374
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          750,467
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        96,326
<OTHER-SE>                                     938,581
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,785,374
<SALES>                                      1,964,782
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,965,291
<CGS>                                        1,414,560
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,414,560
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,637
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (381,824)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (381,824)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (381,824)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (0.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.04)


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-Mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Mar-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 Apr-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   Dec-31-1999
<CASH>                                         185
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  922
<ALLOWANCES>                                   16
<INVENTORY>                                    1,015
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               2,313
<PP&E>                                         965
<DEPRECIATION>                                 682
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 3,367
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1,552
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       211
<OTHER-SE>                                     1,238
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   3,367
<SALES>                                        3,859
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               3,859
<CGS>                                          1,777
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  1,801
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             43
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                237
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (290)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            527
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   527
<EPS-BASIC>                                    .25
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .25




</TABLE>
**Exhibit 31.2**
**CERTIFICATION**
I, Don W. Watson, certify that:
     1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of CSK Auto Corporation;
     2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;
     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded 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 inthis report;
     4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
     a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, orcaused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this reportis being prepared;
     b. Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in thisreport our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of theperiod covered by this report based on such evaluation ; and
     c. Disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting thatoccurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarterthat has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and
     5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
     a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknessesin the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize, andreport financial information ; and
     b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role inthe registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.     /s/ DON W. WATSON  Don W, Watson *Chief Financial Officer*
April 14, 2004
Page 60