alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Venango County Venango Regional Airport Chess Lamberton Field www.flyfranldin.org 1560 Airport Road Franldin, PA 16323 814/432-5333 

### Commissioners Chnil'JIlnn: Timothy S. Drool,s Vincent L.Withel'n(l Bonnie S. SUlIllllers Airport Mnunger: 01110C. Dell

June 11,2014



# -=

~ 

# -- 1] Mr. Michael D. Gonllas United States Department ofTransporiation Office ofAviation Analysis 1200New Jersey Ave. S.E. Washington, DC 20590 Dear Mr. Gormas; 

### -<=

, po Iwrite today on behalf of the Communities of franklin/ Oil City and the Oil Heritage Region of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania served by the Venango County Regional Airport. These Communities support the bid for Essential Air Service that was submitted by Sun Air on May 27, 2014. We haveparticipated as a member ofthe Pennsylvania Air Service committee since its inception in2007. The Committee embarked on a statewide study to improve air service from all the commercial service airports within the Commonwealth. The results ofthis multi-year study showed that low-fare, high frequency, reliable air service to Pittsburgh on smaller aireraft would beable toreverse the downward passenger trends and get enplanement levels above ten (10) daily while maintaining the pel'passenger subsidy level below $200.00. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the Pittsburgh International Airport haveparticipated fully throughout the whole process and plan on supporting new service to PIT with marketing funds and strategies to increase awareness. This region has suffered declining enplanements due tounreliable service and arelatively high priced hub airport while the largest percentage ofour market used other airports, most notably Pittsburgh. This has negatively impacted the ability to maintain and attract businesses to the region. Reli"ble commercial ail'service isaneconomic driver that is desperately needed here. Werespectfully request aquick decision fromthe USDOT as the afready poor service and reliability from the current carrier has resulted in significant numbers ofpassengers ceasing flying from our airport over tilepas!six 

### (6)yea'rsand this has actually beet; exacerbated "by the negative press and uncertainty over the status ofthe current service over thepast year and ahalf ormore. The community prcfcrs not to waive itsrights to twin engine aircraft.We truly appreciate your efforts and those ofyourDepartment in soliciting the airline bids and

administering the EAS program. We eagerly anticipate working with you, Sun Air, PIT and our communities to bring about self sustaining air service to theregion. We are confident that the proposed service by Sun Air combined with the cooperative relationship ourregion has with Pittsburgh International Airport and the Bureau ofAviation ofthe Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is apractical solution that will increase passenger levels above EAS minimums and ensure continued access to the nation's air transportation system. Thank you.

Respectfully submitted,

Olho C. Bell Airport Manager Venango Regional Airport
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20

- 1653

MAMADOU NBAYE, a/k/a Amadou Korka Diallo , Petitioner ,

v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General , Respondent

.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

.

Submitted : March 23, 2021 Decided: April 13, 2021

Before WILKINSON and MOTZ , Circuit Judges , and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by un published per curiam opinion

.
John E. Gallagher , Catonsville, Maryland, for Petitioner. Jeffrey Bossert Clark, Acting Assistant Attorney General, John S. Hogan, Assistant Director, Deiz P. Lefort, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE , Washi ngton, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Mamadou Nbaye, a native and citizen of Guinea, petitions for review of the May 21,
2020 , decision and order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (the Board) dismissing Nbaye’s appeal from the Immigration Judge’s decision denying his applications for asylum and withholding of removal. * After thoroughly reviewing the record, we are satisfied that the evidence does not compel a ruling contrary to any of the administrative factual findings,

see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B), and that substantial evidence supports the denial of relief,

see INS v. Elias

- Zacarias , 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992). Accordingly, we deny Nbaye’s petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board in its decision and order adopting and affirming the Immigration Judge’s written decision. In re Nbaye (B.I.A. May 21, 2020). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials befo re this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED

* The Immigration Judge and the Board also denied Nbaye’s request for protection under the Convention Against Torture. Nbaye does not challenge the denial of that request in his opening brief , and he has thus forfeited review of th e issue

. See Suarez

- Vale nzuela v. Holder , 714 F.3d 241, 248

- 49 (4th Cir. 2013)

.
**Exhibit
      32.1**





**Written
      Statement of Chief Executive Officer**


**Pursuant
      to Section 906 of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**





In
      connection with the Annual Report of Jeffersonville Bancorp (the “Company”) on
      Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned
      hereby certifies to his knowledge on the date hereof, that:





1.
            The
                Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) 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 result of operations of the
                Company.





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
      authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
      in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
      by Section 906, has been provided to Jeffersonville Bancorp and will be retained
      by Jeffersonville Bancorp and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
      commission or its staff upon request.





**/s/
                Raymond Walter**Raymond
                WalterMarch
                17, 2008
            *President
                and Chief Executive
                Officer*
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

ALEXANDER KIM TORPPE,

Petitioner,

V.

OP 20-0269

ELEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

FOR FLATHEAD COUNTY,

and Hon. HEIDI J. ULBRICHT, Presiding,

Respondent.

FILED

MAY 1 5 2020

Bowen Greenwood

Clerk of Supreme Court

State of Montana

ORDER

Petitioner Alexander Kim Torppe, via counsel, seeks a writ of supervisory control

directing the Eleventh Judicial District Court, Flathead County, to reverse an order denying

Torppe's motion to dismiss in its Cause No. DC-17-645(C). Torppe alleges he is being

illegally detained and subjected to forced medication and that the District Court is without

jurisdiction over him. Torppe alleges supervisory control is necessary in this case.

Having reviewed the Petition and the challenged Order, this Court deems it appropriate

to obtain a summary response. Therefore, in accordance with M. R. App. P. 14(7),

IT IS ORDERED that the Eleventh Judicial District Court and the State of Montana, or

both, are granted until June 4, 2020, to prepare, file, and serve a response(s) to the petition for

writ of supervisoty control.

The Clerk is directed to provide immediate notice of this Order to counsel for Petitioner,

all counsel of record in the Eleventh Judicial District Court, Flathead County, Cause No.

DC-17-645(C), and the Honorable Heidi J. Ulbricht, presiding.

Dated this 15,lay of May, 2020.

Ss-31- A4 ,,UL Justice

05/15/2020

Case Number: OP 20-0269
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1996
<CASH>                                          29,541
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  659,143
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  1,489,785
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,596,585
<PP&E>                                         128,086
<DEPRECIATION>                                  21,209
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,089,370
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,953,346
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,134,024
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,089,370
<SALES>                                      5,525,238
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             5,525,238
<CGS>                                        2,052,757
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,260,093
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              25,265
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                192,222
<INCOME-TAX>                                    71,699
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            120,523
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   120,523
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .04
        

</TABLE>
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 April 28, 2017

t0425

Order 

Clerk

April 28, 2017

155559

In re A.S. CRAWFORD, Minor. SC: 155559

COA: 334166

Wayne CC Family Div: 

 16-522398-NA

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 14, 2017 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
ftUnitedStatesEnvironmentalProtection''AgencyAffiliation1•----------------------------------------------------------Telephone__________________________________________________________Email).Wouldyouliketobeaddedtoourmailinglist?DYesDNo
<PAGE>   1
                                                                  EXHIBIT 10.27A



                                    AGREEMENT


         On this ___ day of July, 1997, Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc.
(hereinafter the "Company") and D. Louis Peoples (hereinafter the "Executive")
enter into this Agreement effective July 1, 1997.

         WHEREAS, the Executive and the Company are parties to a letter
agreement dated July 14, 1994 and a letter agreement dated September 29, 1994
(individually and collectively the "Letter Agreement(s)"); and

         WHEREAS, paragraph "4" of the September 29, 1994 Letter Agreement was
intended to amend the Officers' Supplemental Retirement Plan of Orange and
Rockland Utilities, Inc. (the "Plan") to provide for the inclusion of incentive
compensation in the calculation of Executive's benefit under the Plan on an
accelerated incremental basis commensurate with years of service with the
Company; and

         WHEREAS, the Plan has recently been amended to reflect that the
definition of "Compensation" under the Plan shall include all incentive
compensation that an Officer was/is eligible to earn under the Company's Annual
Team Incentive Plan at target, effective January 1, 1995; and

         WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive wish to amend the Letter
Agreements so as to reflect these recent changes to the Plan.

         NOW, THEREFORE, the Company and the Executive agree as follows:

         1. Effective January 1, 1995, the benefit to which Executive may be
entitled under the Plan, as determined under the terms and conditions of the
Plan, shall be calculated to include 100% of the Annual Team Incentive Plan
award that Executive is eligible to earn at target in an applicable year, in
accordance with the definition of "Compensation" under Section 2(9)(B) of the
Plan, as amended and restated on June 5, 1997 and effective July 1, 1997.
Paragraph "4" of the September 29, 1994 Letter Agreement is hereby superseded by
this paragraph.
<PAGE>   2
         2. Nothing in this Agreement is intended, nor shall this Agreement be
construed, to in any way amend or limit the accelerated vesting provisions in
the Letter Agreements.

         3. To the extent the terms of the Letter Agreements conflict with the
terms of this Agreement, the terms of this Agreement shall govern.



     ----------------------------             ----------------------------
           D. Louis Peoples                       James F. O'Grady, Jr.
                                                  Chairman, Compensation
                                                        Committee
ex336.htm


    Exhibit
10.6

     

    
 

    
      AMENDMENT TO EXECUTIVE
EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

       

      This Amendment to Executive Employment
Agreement is executed this 6th day of
November, 2008 by and between Gen2Media Corp. (the Company) and Ian
McDaniel (Employee).

       

      1.           This
Agreement amends that certain Executive Employment Agreement between the parties
dated May 1, 2008 (the Agreement).

       

      2.           The
Agreement is hereby amended to provide that the base salary of the Employee is
changed to $125,000 per year for the life of the Agreement. This increase shall
be effective as of November 1, 2008, and shall be paid beginning with the
November 15 paycheck.

       

      3.           The
Agreement is further amended to provide that the Incentive Bonus provided in
paragraph 3(b) thereof is eliminated, and there shall no longer be a cash bonus
provision in the Agreement.

       

      4.           In
consideration of this Amendment, Employee hereby forgives any and all past
salaries or other compensation due him from prior services rendered to the
Company.

       

      5.           Other
than as specifically amended hereby, all other terms and provisions of the
Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.

       

      Wherefore, this Agreement is entered
into this 6th day of
November, 2008.

       

       

      
        
          
            
              
                
                  
                    
                      
                        
                          	Gen2Media
      Corp.	 	Employee	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	By:	
                                  /s/

                                	 	By:	
                                  /s/
      

                                	 
	 	
                                  Jim
      Byrd, CEO

                                	 	 	Ian McDaniel
2008 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

8-11-2008

McKinley v. Secretary Army

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 07-1576

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2008 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"McKinley v. Secretary Army" (2008). 2008 Decisions. Paper 688.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008/688
NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

No: 07-1576

EVELYN MCKINLEY,

Appellant

 v.

SECRETARY OF THE UNITED STATES ARMY,

Appellee

 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Pennsylvania

(04-CV-00222)

District Court: Hon. Sean J. McLaughlin

Submitted July 21, 2008

Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

Before: McKEE, FUENTES, and JORDAN, Circuit Judges,

(Filed: August 11, 2008 )

OPINION OF THE COURT

McKee, Circuit Judge.
Evelyn McKinley appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor

of her employer, the United States Army, in the gender discrimination action she filed

under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000(e). We will affirm.

Inasmuch as we write primarily for the parties who are familiar with this case, we

need not recite the factual or procedural background of this dispute. We have reviewed

the thorough and thoughtful Report and Recommendation which the Magistrate Judge

filed on December 13, 2006, and the district court adopted on February 6, 2007. That 

Report and Recommendation fully and accurately explains why the Army was entitled to

summary judgment, and we can add little to that analysis and discussion. Accordingly, we

will affirm substantially for the reasons set forth in the aforementioned Report and

Recommendation.
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 176 (Wednesday, September 11, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 73643]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-20594]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 7153-018]


Consolidated Hydro New York, LLC; Notice of Reasonable Period of 
Time for Water Quality Certification Application

    On August 27, 2024, the New York State Department of Environmental 
Conservation (New York DEC) submitted to the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission (Commission) notice that it received a request for a Clean 
Water Act section 401(a)(1) water quality certification as defined in 
40 CFR 121.5, from Consolidated Hydro New York, LLC in conjunction with 
the above captioned project on August 27, 2024. Pursuant to section 
4.34(b)(5) of the Commission's regulations,\1\ we hereby notify New 
York DEC of the following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 18 CFR 4.34(b)(5).

Date of Receipt of the Certification Request: August 27, 2024
Reasonable Period of Time to Act on the Certification Request: One 
year, August 27, 2025.

    If the New York DEC fails or refuses to act on the water quality 
certification request on or before the above date, then the certifying 
authority is deemed waived pursuant to section 401(a)(1) of the Clean 
Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1341(a)(1).

    Dated: September 5, 2024.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2024-20594 Filed 9-10-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
NO. 07-99-0164-CV

	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

	FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	AT AMARILLO

	PANEL D

	AUGUST 7, 2002

	______________________________

	MICHAEL VICTOR MILLER, RALPH FIELDS NORWOOD, III

	and BURGERS OF DIAMOND BAR,

									Appellants

v.

HUDSON’S GRILL INTERNATIONAL, INC.,

									Appellee

	_________________________________

	FROM THE 101st DISTRICT COURT OF DALLAS COUNTY;

	NO. 98-4455-E; HON. JOHN WHITTINGTON, PRESIDING

	_______________________________

	ORDER OF DISMISSAL

	________________________________

Before BOYD, C.J., QUINN and REAVIS, JJ. 

	Michael Victor Miller, Ralph Fields Norwood, III, and Burgers of Diamond Bar appealed a default judgment entered in favor of Hudson’s Grill International, Inc.  Thereafter, the appeal was abated when the court received notice that each appellant had filed for bankruptcy.  Recently, counsel for appellants provided the court with evidence illustrating that Miller and Burgers of Diamond Bar received a discharge in bankruptcy encompassing the debt represented by the aforementioned judgment.  Hudson Grill International, Inc. did not dispute this.  Their debt having been discharged, the appeal of Miller and Burgers of Diamond Bar is moot and, therefore dismissed.  Furthermore, the cause is reinstated upon the court’s docket solely to effectuate that purpose but again abated until the status of Norwood’s bankruptcy can be determined.

	It is so ordered.

									Per Curiam

Do not publish.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

  <ARTICLE>                         5
  <CIK>                             0001013148
  <NAME>                            Xybernaut Corporation
  <MULTIPLIER>                      1,000
         
  <S>                         <C>                     
  <FISCAL-YEAR-END>                 DEC-31-1998
  <PERIOD-START>                    JAN-01-1999
  <PERIOD-END>                      MAR-31-1999
  <PERIOD-TYPE>                     3-MOS                  
  <CASH>                                   1,933,210
  <SECURITIES>                                 0
  <RECEIVABLES>                             809,451
  <ALLOWANCES>                               90,968
  <INVENTORY>                              3,959,072
  <CURRENT-ASSETS>                         7,284,174
  <PP&E>                                   1,342,559
  <DEPRECIATION>                            745,509
  <TOTAL-ASSETS>                           9,040,601
  <CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                    4,243,221
  <BONDS>                                      0
  <COMMON>                                  222,297
  <PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        0
  <PREFERRED>                              4,192,731
  <OTHER-SE>                                382,352
  <TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>             9,040,601
  <SALES>                                   645,776
  <TOTAL-REVENUES>                          654,163
  <CGS>                                     573,171
  <TOTAL-COSTS>                             573,171
  <OTHER-EXPENSES>                         4,294,401
  <LOSS-PROVISION>                             0
  <INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           0
  <INCOME-PRETAX>                         (4,206,699)
  <INCOME-TAX>                               14,978
  <INCOME-CONTINUING>                     (4,221,677)
  <DISCONTINUED>                               0
  <EXTRAORDINARY>                              0
  <CHANGES>                                    0
  <NET-INCOME>                            (4,221,677)
  <EPS-PRIMARY>                              (.20)
  <EPS-DILUTED>                              (.20)
                                     
  
</TABLE>