alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Mr. Kevin Schlemmer 

Office of Aviation Analysis 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

RE: Essential Air Services Proposal, Docket DOT-OST-2000-8556 

Dear Mr. Schlemmer: 

As the regulated electric utility in Adak, TDX Adak Generating, LLC (TAG) kindly requests strong 

consideration be given to the proposal by Alaska Airlines to provide continued jet service to Adak 

Island. 

As the electric utility, we are the only source of electric power in Adak, a critical service in this remote 

location. Given the harsh environment and severe weather, the reliability of Alaska Air's jet service is 

paramount in ensuring we are able to move people and material to respond to the many critical situations 

that occur frequently in Adak. 

Jet service also provides the timeliest travel option, as well as the most reliable as the ability to land in 

Adak is often hampered by unruly weather conditions. At other TDX utilities around the state, we have 

consistently experienced delays in travel and cargo movement as the smaller aircraft that service these 

locations are unable to land due to weather restrictions. When these flights are delayed or rescheduled, 

the ability to get people and material on subsequent flights is limited. These delays cost local business 

considerable expense, and unlike Adak, most other locations are serviced by regular barge service. 

We fully support the City of Adak's position, and that of the other local businesses in Adak in their 

support continuing Alaska Airline's jet service to Adak. We urge the Department of Transportation to 

award the Essential Air Service contract for Adak for another two years beginning October 1, 2015. 

Sincerely, 

a .. A./.1J\k·.·1• Genera·t· ~~c; J- (/ J 

/Jo:r~yo~ fit.-/ 

General Manager 

E. 18
EXHIBIT 11.1

                                INTERCARDIA, INC.

             STATEMENT RE COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME (LOSS) PER SHARE
                  (Dollars in thousands, except per share data)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>


                                                                         Three Months Ended
                                                                            December 31,
                                                              ------------------------------------------
                                                                     1997                   1996
                                                              -------------------    -------------------

Net Income (Loss) per Unaudited Consolidated
<S>                                                            <C>                    <C>              
   Statements of Operations                                    $         (1,208)      $           1,222
                                                              ===================    ===================



Basic earnings (loss) per share:
   Weighted average of common shares outstanding                       6,766,547              6,739,657
                                                              ===================    ===================

   Net income  (loss) per common share - basic                $           (0.18)     $             0.18
                                                              ===================    ===================



Diluted earnings (loss) per share:
   Calculation of weighted average number of
      common shares and common share equivalents:
        Common stock                                                   6,766,547              6,739,657
        Stock options and warrants                                             -                764,772
                                                              -------------------    -------------------
                                                                       6,766,547              7,504,429
                                                              ===================    ===================

   Net income (loss) per common share - diluted                $          (0.18)      $            0.16
                                                              ===================    ===================

</TABLE>




                                       16
<PAGE>
m' ^ L^ [0:1 A 

STA R ALLIANC':E 

Martin Kammemnan 

Manager 

Market Analysis 

Phone: (312)997-8677 

FAX: (312)997-8677 

E-mail: MarHn.Kammefman@unltecl.com 

September?, 2010 

Honorable Raymond LaHood 

Secretary of Transportation 

US Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

RE: Docket OST-2010-0124 

Proposal of Bangor International Airport for a Small 

Community Air Service Development Grant 

-•- -'= ' Z' J 

i . • 

r— 

V 

^ 

Cfl 

cn 

-'^ ^ 

(•-> ::-' 1 

rn^r n 

5t§5j 

o g ^ 

C 3 

Dear Secretary LaHood, 

United Airlines is pleased to support the application of Bangor International Airport for a Small Community Air 

Service Development (SCASD) grant aimed at attracting additional air service. 

While United can provide no assurances regarding future service at Bangor International Airport, the availability of 

SCASD grant funds would factor positively in our evaluation of the market. SCASD grant funds are important 

given the challenges facing the U.S. domestic airlines, resulting from costs associated with new market development 

and the perpetual uncertainty surrounding oil prices. 

For these reasons, United Airlines supports the SCASD grant application of Bangor International Airport and asks 

that you give it favorable consideration. Please feel free to contact me should you have any questions. 

Sincerely 

Martin Kammerman 

cc: Aloha Ley 

Associate Director, Small Community Air Service Development Program 

Address: The United Building. 77 WesI Wackei Drive, Chlcogo. IL 60601
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 214 (Friday, November 3, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 66240]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-28213]



[[Page 66240]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary


Meeting of the DoD Healthcare Quality Initiative Review Panel

AGENCY: Department of Defense.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: On October 26, 2000, the DoD Healthcare Quality Initiatives 
Review panel published notice on an upcoming meeting (65 FR 64204). 
This notice is being published to change meeting dates due to the 
Federal holiday on November 10th.

DATES: November 8 & 9, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Sheraton Crystal City, 1800 Jefferson Davis Hwy, Arlington, 
VA 22202.

TIME: November 8th, 8 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.; November 9th, 8 a.m. to 5:30 
p.m.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gia Edmonds at (703) 933-8325.

    Dated: October 30, 2000.
L.M. Bynum,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 00-28213 Filed 11-2-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-10-M
Exhibit 31.2 CFO CertificationI, Richard Bjorkman, certify that:1. I have reviewed this Form 10-QSB of Sutura, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement ofa material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows ofthe small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I areresponsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) forthe small business issuer and have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to thesmall business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly duringthe period in which this report is being prepared;  (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report ourconclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report basedon such evaluation; and  (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small businessissuer’s internal control over financial reporting that occurredduring the small business issuer’s most recent fiscal quarter (thesmall business issuer’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of anannual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likelyto materially affect, the small business issuer’s internal controlover financial reporting; and5. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I havedisclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the small business issuer’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the small business issuer’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions): (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reportingwhich are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small businessissuer’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the small businessissuer’s internal control over financial reporting.Date:November 19, 2007   /s/ Richard Bjorkman Richard Bjorkman   Chief Financial Officer
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-7807

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

ROOSEVELT BROADUS, a/k/a Supreme,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr.,

Chief District Judge. (CR-91-209-G, CA-97-965-1)

Submitted: May 19, 2000 Decided: June 1, 2000

Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Cheryl Johns Sturm, Chadds Ford, Pennsylvania, for Appellant.

Benjamin H. White, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Roosevelt Broadus seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.

2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find

no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district

court. See United States v. Broadus, Nos. CR-91-209-G; CA-97-965-1

(M.D.N.C. Nov. 9, 1998). We dispense with oral argument because

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

DISMISSED
EXHIBIT 32



                          CERTIFICATIONS 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  Quarterly  Report of The Bombay Company, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarterly  period  ended July 30, 2005 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date  hereof (the "Report"),
each of the undersigned certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of
their knowledge:

(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/  JAMES  D.  CARREKER                      /S/ ELAINE D. CROWLEY
-----------------------------                 ------------------------------
James D. Carreker                             Elaine D. Crowley
Chairman of the Board and                     Senior Vice President,
Chief Executive Officer                       Chief Financial Officer
                                              and Treasurer


Dated:  September 8, 2005                     Dated: September 8, 2005
#### BEACH v. STATE.

No. 23609.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 5, 1947.

William C. McDonald, of San Angelo, for appellant.

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

KRUEGER, Judge.

The offense is driving a motor vehicle, while intoxicated, upon a public highway in Tom Green County. The punishment assessed is a fine of Fifty Dollars.

Appellant’s first complaint relates to the court’s action in overruling his motion to quash the complaint and information. We have examined both the complaint and information and are convinced that they charge an offense defined by Article 802, P.C., Vernon’s Ann.P.C. art. 802.

He next contends that the court erred in declining to • sustain his motion for a new trial based upon what he claims is an improper verdict. The verdict as returned by the jury reads as follows:

> “We, the jury, find the defendant guilty and assess his punishment by a fine of fifty dollars.

> "(Signed) J. P. LeMay, “Foreman.

> “We, the jury, recommend that he be permitted to retain his drivers license.”

The! verdict of the jury definitely recites that they found appellant guilty of driving a motor vehicle, while intoxicated, upon a public highway and assessed his punishment at $50. Thereupon his driver’s license was automatically suspended for a period of six months by virtue of Sec. 16 of Art. 6687a, Vernon’s Revised Civil Statutes. The jury had no legal authority to either suspend or to recommend that his driver’s license be not suspended. They were evidently aware of this. Consequently, their recommendation was but a suggestion to the court. In the instant case, the court could disregard the recommendation since the question of suspension or non-suspension of the driver’s license was not to be determined by the jury but by the law upon conviction. Such, however, is not the case where the jury recommends a suspension of sentence which is within their province. Appellant cites us to the case of Smith v. State, 72 Tex.Cr.R. 206, 162 S.W. 835, as sustaining his contention. It will be noted that in that *1021case the jury failed to assess any penalty and then recommended suspension of jail sentence. In that case, the court ordered the jury to retire and bring in a verdict in consonance with the charge of the court, which they did. This court sustained the action of the trial court and we think properly so.

By bills of exception, appellant complains of the admission of testimony given by certain witnesses. These bills cannot be properly appraised in the absence of a statement of facts.

He also complains because the court declined to sustain his objections, timely made, to the court’s charge. This being a misdemeanor, he was not only required to object to the charge but to also prepare and present a proper instruction. See Hall v. State, 102 Tex.Cr.R. 329, 277 S.W. 129, West v. State, 139 Tex.Cr.R. 177, 139 S.W.2d 90, and cases there cited.

No reversible error appearing in the record, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court
* 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 April 4, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-50898 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus RENE LIMA-MORALES, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 2:06-CR-115-1

-------------------- Before JONES, Chief Judge, and HIGGINBOTHAM and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Rene Lima-Morales 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.
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 Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c0(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                        National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Special Emphasis Panel.                    

*Date:*                        November 30, 2000.                    

*Time:*                        10 AM to 5 PM.                    

*Agenda:*                        To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                        5520 Wisconsin Avenue, Chevy Chase, MD 20815.                    

*Contact Person:*                        Robert H. Stretch, PhD, Scientific Review Administrator, Division of Scientific Review, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, NIH, 6100 Executive Blvd., Room 5E01, MSC 7510, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435-6912.                    

                        (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.209, Contraception and Infertility Loan Repayment Program; 93.864, Population Research; 93.865, Research for                               ( print page 65866)                            Mothers and Children; 93.929, Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)                    

Dated: October 25, 2000.

LaVerne Y. Stringfield,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 00-28099  Filed 11-1-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
EXHIBIT 32



                          CERTIFICATIONS 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  Quarterly  Report of The Bombay Company, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarterly  period ended April 30, 2005 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission  on the date hereof (the "Report"),
each of the undersigned certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of
their knowledge:

(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/  JAMES  D.  CARREKER                      /S/ ELAINE D. CROWLEY
-----------------------------                 ------------------------------
James D. Carreker                             Elaine D. Crowley
Chairman of the Board  and                    Senior Vice President,
Chief Executive Officer                       Chief Financial Officer
                                              and Treasurer

Dated:  June 9, 2005                          Dated:  June 9, 2005
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION–NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]



# United States Court of Appeals

**For the First Circuit**

No. 00-1280 JOHN SHEWCHUN, PHD, Plaintiff, Appellant,

v. STATE OF RHODE ISLAND, ET AL., Defendants, Appellees.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND [Hon. Ernest C. Torres, U.S. District Judge ] [Hon. David L. Martin, U.S. Magistrate Judge ]
Before Torruella, Chief Judge , Selya and Boudin, Circuit Judges .

John Shewchunon brief pro se. Sheldon Whitehouse , Attorney General, and Neil F.X. Kelly , Special Assistant Attorney General, on brief for appellees.

January 24, 2001Per Curiam . The district court held that

pl aintiff's claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 were barred by the forum State's statute of limitations. Plaintiff repeats here some of the arguments which he presented below and adds others. The added arguments were waived by the failure to urge them below and there is no plain error.

Reviewing the preserved issues de novo in light of the briefs and the record on appeal, we agree with the district court that the suit was filed almost eight years too late. Specifically, plaintiff has not substantiated his claimthat a lawsuit which he commenced during the limitations period had remained pending for any significant portionof the intervening years. He also offers no convincing argument for use of the equitable exception to the limitations period for "continuing violations." Construed inlight of what he pleaded and could prove, the complaint alleged several communications of mistaken informationemanating from a single wrongful act (the alleged entry into the state court records of wrong informationabout the terms of the plaintiff's probationary sentence in breach of a plea agreement). No systemic policy
nor practice was alleged. The pendent claim, too, properly was dismissed.-3- We need not reach the ineffective assistance claim since there is no right to counsel in a civil case. The alleged impropriety by plaintiff's private counsel did not affect the result in this case.

Affirmed .