alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
AFS-12-338-E June 22, 2012

Exemption No. 10178C Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2010-1012

Mr. Omer ErSelcuk

President/Chief Executive Officer Seaborne Virgin Islands, Inc., d.b.a. Seaborne Airlines 1210 Watergut Christianstead, VI 00820

Dear Mr. ErSelcuk:

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your petition to extend Exemption No. 10178, as amended. It explains the basis for our decision and describes its effect.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter dated April 19, 2012, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Adm inistration (FAA) on behalf of Seaborne Virgin Islands, Inc., d.b.a. Seaborne Airlines (Seaborne Airlines) for an extension of Exemption No. 10178, as amended, to June 30, 2013. That exemption from § 121.305(j) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations allows Seaborne Airlines to continue to conduct domestic, flag, and supplemental operations in the islands of the Caribbean without installing a third gyroscopic bank and pitch indicator.

In your petition, you indicate that there has been no change in the conditions and reasons relative to public interest and safety that were the basis for granting the original exemption.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition

in the Federal Register because the requested extension of the exemption would not set a precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Seaborne Airlines.2

Our Decision

The FAA has determ ined that the justification for the issuance of Exemption No. 10178, as amended, remains valid with respect to this exemption and is in the public interest. Therefore, under the authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator has delegated to me, I grant your petition.

The Effect of Our Decision

Our decision extends the term ination date of Exemption No. 10178, as amended, to June 30, 2013, unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Sincerely,

/S/

John S. Duncan Deputy Director, Flight Standards

Service
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). *** The Honorable Robert Holmes Bell, U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan, sitting by designation. NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
EDDIE MORALES, Plaintiff - Appellant,
v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant - Appellee. No. 11-56003 D.C. No. 5:10-cv-00013-AGR
MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Alicia G. Rosenberg, Magi strate Judge, Presiding Submitted January 10, 2013 ** Pasadena, California Before: McKEOWN and M. SMITH, Circu it Judges, and BELL, District Judge. *** 

# FILED
JAN 14 2013 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 Eddie Hernandez Morales appeals the di strict court’s order affirming the administrative law judge’s (ALJ) denial of his request for a continuance. The ALJ proceeded with a video hearing despite Morales’ absence because Morales’ attorney was present, and the ALJ deem ed Morales a non-essential witness. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S .C. § 1291, and we affirm. The ALJ did not err in denying Morales’ request for a continuance. As an initial matter, Morales failed to provide tim ely notice of his request to reschedule the hearing. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.1436(d) (agency must be notified about any request to reschedule the hearing at the “earliest possible opportunity before the time set for the hearing”). Additionally, the ALJ’s denial was proper pursuant to § 416.1436(f) and § 416.1450(a), because the ALJ considered the fact that Morales’ counsel was present at the hearing on Morales’ behalf , and that Morales’ frequent incarcerations made rescheduling likely to result in further delays. See § 416.1436(f) (“In determining whether good cause exists . . . the [ALJ] will consider . . . the impact of the proposed change on the efficient administration of the hearing process. Factors affecting the impact of the change include . . .delays which might occur in rescheduling your hearing”); see also § 416.1450(a) (“[a] party may also make his or her appearance by means of a designate d representative”). The ALJ did not err3 by deeming Morales a non-essential witn ess because the administrative record contained statements from Morales concer ning his claimed disability, and Morales has not shown that his testimony at a continued hearing was necessary. Finally, Morales asserts that we have jurisdiction to hear his due process claim. This claim has been waived, how ever, because Morales failed to raise it before the district court, and failed to articulate it in his opening brief. See, e.g. , In re Rains , 428 F.3d 893, 902 (9th Cir. 2005); Hibbs v. Dep’t of Human Res. , 273 F.3d 844, 873 n.34 (9th Cir. 2001). AFFIRMED.
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

 

The Board of Directors 

Rewards Network Inc.:

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference into previously filedregistration statements on Form S-3 (Registration Nos. 333-53147, 333-49366 and 333-111390) and on Form S-8 (Registration Nos. 333-101237, 333-72501, 333-06747 and 333-115903) of Rewards Network Inc. and subsidiaries (the Company) of our reportsdated March 11, 2005, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of the Company as of December 31, 2004 and 2003, and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders’ equity and comprehensive income, and cash flows for each ofthe years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2004, and the related financial statement schedule and management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2004, which reportsappears in the December 31, 2004, annual report on Form 10-K of the Company. 

 

/s/ KPMG LLP 

 

Miami, Florida 

March 11, 2005
<PAGE>   1


                                                                     Exhibit 15





Letter Re:  Unaudited Interim Financial Information

Aetna Inc.
Hartford, Connecticut

Ladies and Gentlemen:

Re: Registration Statements No. 333-07169, 333-08427, 333-08429, 333-08431,
333-52321, 333-68881, 333-52321-01, 333-52321-02, 333-52321-03, 333-52321-04,
and 333-52321-05.


With respect to the Registration Statements filed by Aetna Inc. or its
Subsidiaries, we acknowledge our awareness of the use therein of our report
dated October 31, 2000 related to our review of interim financial information.

Pursuant to Rule 436(c) under the Securities Act of 1933, such report is not
considered a part of a registration statement prepared or certified by an
accountant or a report prepared or certified by an accountant within the meaning
of Sections 7 and 11 of the Act.



                                                  /s/  KPMG LLP


Hartford, Connecticut
October 31, 2000
NO. 07-10-0185-CR 

 

 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

 FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

 AT AMARILLO 

 PANEL B 

 JUNE 14, 2010 

 ______________________________ 

 OMAR GUERRERO, A/K/A SALVADOR GUERRERO, 

 Appellant 

 v. 

 THE STATE OF TEXAS, 

 Appellee 

________________________________ 

 FROM THE 108th DISTRICT COURT OF POTTER COUNTY; 

 NO. 59,732-E; HON. DOUG WOODBURN, PRESIDING 

 _______________________________ 

 

ON ABATEMENT AND REMAND

 _______________________________ 

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ. 

Appellant appeals from his conviction for aggravated robbery. Neither the clerk’s 

record nor the reporter’s record has been filed. Furthermore, a request has been made 

to extend the deadline by which the appellate record must be filed. Through the request, 

we are told that appellant has not paid or made arrangements to pay for the appellate 

record and that no attorney has been appointed to represent him on appeal. 
2 

Accordingly, we abate this appeal and remand the cause to the 108th District 

Court of Potter County (trial court) for further proceedings. Upon remand, the trial court 

shall determine, by reasonable evidentiary procedure it selects, the following: 

1. whether appellant desires to prosecute the appeal; 

 2. whether appellant is indigent; and, if so, 

3. whether the appellant is entitled to a free appellate record and the 

appointment of an attorney due to his indigency. 

The trial court is also directed to enter such orders necessary to address the 

aforementioned questions. So too shall it include its findings on those matters (including 

the name, address, and phone number of any attorney it may appoint to represent 

appellant in this appeal) in a supplemental record and cause that record to be filed with 

this court by July 14, 2010. Should further time be needed to perform these tasks, then 

same must be requested before July 14, 2010. In the meantime, all other appellate 

deadlines are stayed until further order of this court. 

It is so ordered. 

Per Curiam 

Do not publish.
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

1482 

CAF 11-01754 

PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, SCONIERS, AND VALENTINO, JJ.

 

IN THE MATTER OF DYLAN A.B. 

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

STEUBEN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

SERVICES, PETITIONER-RESPONDENT; 

 

DANIEL B., JR., RESPONDENT-APPELLANT. 

(APPEAL NO. 3.) 

PAUL B. WATKINS, FAIRPORT, FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.

ALAN P. REED, COUNTY ATTORNEY, BATH (CRAIG A. PATRICK OF COUNSEL), FOR

PETITIONER-RESPONDENT. 

SALLY A. MADIGAN, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD, BATH, FOR DYLAN A.B. 

 

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Steuben County

(Marianne Furfure, A.J.), entered August 10, 2011 in a proceeding

pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b. The order terminated the

parental rights of respondent. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed without costs.

Same Memorandum as in Matter of Daltun A.B. (___ AD3d ___ [Feb.

1, 2013]).

Entered: February 1, 2013 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0001013844
<NAME>                        Colonial Realty Limited Partnership
<MULTIPLIER>                  1
<CURRENCY>                    U.S. Dollars
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               Dec-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                  Jan-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                    Sep-30-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                 1.000
<CASH>                          2,430,329
<SECURITIES>                    0
<RECEIVABLES>                   3,240,522
<ALLOWANCES>                    19,464
<INVENTORY>                     0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                0
<PP&E>                          937,509,904
<DEPRECIATION>                  95,570,159
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  871,539,089
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           0
<BONDS>                         431,542,723
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>           0
<PREFERRED>                     0
<COMMON>                        192,775,714
<OTHER-SE>                      221,318,948
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    871,539,089
<SALES>                         0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                96,262,545
<CGS>                           0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                   51,331,803
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                   471,200
<LOSS-PROVISION>                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              16,614,047
<INCOME-PRETAX>                 28,787,895
<INCOME-TAX>                    0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>             0
<DISCONTINUED>                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                 487,503
<CHANGES>                       0
<NET-INCOME>                    28,300,392
<EPS-PRIMARY>                   1.11
<EPS-DILUTED>                   1.11
        


</TABLE>
#### NEAL v. STATE.

No. 18405.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 8, 1936.

Guy P. Allison, of San Antonio, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

HAWKINS, Judge.

Conviction is for misdemeanor theft, punishment assessed at a fine of $5 and five days in jail.

The case is submitted on the sole proposition that the evidence does not support the conviction. Appellant’s contention must be sustained.

A detective saw appellant and another negro woman enter Seman’s store in San Antonio. The officer watched the two women through a show window. They went to the back of the store and looked at various articles of merchandise. The other woman was seen to take a pair of ladies pajamas off a rack and place them under her coat. The officer says while she was doing this appellant was close to her and “looking all around.” When the two women left the store the officer arrested both of them and found the pajamas in the possession of the woman who had taken them. The two women were not seen to speak to each other before they entered the store, nor while in there, nor after they left. They were not shown to be associates nor even that they knew each other, until appellant testified that she knew the woman who stole the pajamas, but said they were neither associates nor friends. She further testified that on the day of the theft she went into the store to buy a coat for her two year old child, but they were too light; that she was not in company with the other woman, and did not know she was in the store; that the store was crowded, and that the first time she saw the. woman was about the time they were leaving the store; that the woman spoke to her, and as appellant turned to answer her the officer arrested them. We do not discuss the legal principles involved, but as demonstrating the insufficiency of the evidence cite Branch’s Ann.Tex.P C., § 681, and cases there annotated; also the later cases of Gillard v. State (Tex.Cr.App.) 82 S.W.(2d) 678; Johnson v. State, 123 Tex.Cr.R. 435, 59 S.W.(2d) 388; Texas Jur., vol. 12, p. 353.

The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded.
|Exhibit 12                                                      
|----------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                
|                                                                
|North Shore Gas Company and Subsidiary Companies                
|                                                                
|Statement Re:  Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
|(Dollars in Thousands)                                          
|                                                                
|                                                                
|                                                                
|                                                                
|                                                                
|                                                                
|                                                                
|Net Income Before Preferred                                     
|Stock Dividends                                                 
|                                                                
|Add - Income Taxes                                              
|Fixed Charges excluding capitalized interest                    
|                                                                
|Earnings                                                        
|                                                                
|Fixed Charges including capitalized interest                    
|                                                                
|Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges                              
|
# C_2023227EN.01000201.xml

| 29.6.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 227/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.6.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 227/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10917 – SCHÜCO / METALLINVEST / RSFB / AWB)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2023/C 227/02)

On 2 May 2023, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in German language and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the ‘Competition policy’ website of the Commission (https://competition-cases.ec.europa.eu/search). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the ‘Competition policy’ website of the Commission (https://competition-cases.ec.europa.eu/search). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32023M10917. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32023M10917. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---
[No. 24545-1-II.

Division Two.

October 27, 2000.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Richard Wayne Blair, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Pierce County, 95-1-02782-4, Terry D. Sebring, J., entered March 30, 1999. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Seinfeld, J., concurred in by Houghton and Wang, JJ.
# C_2023195EN.01000401.xml

| 2.6.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 195/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.6.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 195/4

---

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

Cases where the Commission raises no objections

SA.107291

(2023/C 195/03)

| Date of adoption of the decision | 15.5.2023 |
| --- | --- |
| Aid number | SA.107291 |
| Member State | Poland |
| Region | Poland |
| Title (title and/or name of the beneficiary) | TCTF: Pomoc na zmniejszenie kosztów zakupu oleju napędowego wykorzystywanego do produkcji rolnej |
| Legal basis | Art. 3 projektu ustawy o zmianie ustawy o zwrocie podatku akcyzowego zawartego w cenie oleju napędowego wykorzystywanego do produkcji rolnej |
| Type of measure | Scheme |
| Objective | Remedy for a serious disturbance in the economy |
| Form of aid | Direct grant |
| Budget | Overall budget: 561 600 000 PLN |
| Intensity | |
| Duration | Until 31.12.2023 |
| Economic sectors | Crop and animal production, hunting and related service activities |
| Name and address of the granting authority | urzędy gmin/ miast |
| urzędy gmin/miast właściwe miejscowo ze względu na miejsce położenia gruntów |

Date of adoption of the decision

15.5.2023

Aid number

SA.107291

Member State

Poland

Region

Poland

Title (title and/or name of the beneficiary)

TCTF: Pomoc na zmniejszenie kosztów zakupu oleju napędowego wykorzystywanego do produkcji rolnej

Legal basis

Art. 3 projektu ustawy o zmianie ustawy o zwrocie podatku akcyzowego zawartego w cenie oleju napędowego wykorzystywanego do produkcji rolnej

Type of measure

Scheme

Objective

Remedy for a serious disturbance in the economy

Form of aid

Direct grant

Budget

Overall budget: 561 600 000 PLN

Intensity

Duration

Until 31.12.2023

Economic sectors

Crop and animal production, hunting and related service activities

Name and address of the granting authority

urzędy gmin/ miast

urzędy gmin/miast właściwe miejscowo ze względu na miejsce położenia gruntów

Other information

The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:

https://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/index.cfm

---
#### TEXAS & N. O. R. CO. v. ROY CAMPBELL, WISE & WRIGHT, Inc.

No. 10186.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. San Antonio.

Nov. 17, 1937.

John C. North and Leslie S. Lockett, both of Corpus Christi, for appellant.

Boone, Henderson, Boone & Davis, of Corpus Christi, for appellee.

SMITH, Chief Justice.

This action was for damages to a shipment of cucumbers from Sandia, Tex., to Minneapolis, Minn. The trial was to a jury, upon whose verdict judgment was rendered in favor of the shipper against the carrier, which has appeáled. ■

The appeal is based upon one proposition, under which it is contended by ap*172pellant that the evidence was insufficient to “prove the condition in which the goods were actually delivered” at destination. We overrule the proposition. The evidence was ample to show the condition of the shipment, both at the time loaded and at the time delivered by the carrier at destination, and was likewise sufficient to establish. the true measure of damages applicable to such cases and applied here.

The judgment is affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND RELATED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF INCOME OF J.C.
PENNEY COMPANY, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES AS OF JANUARY 25, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-25-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-25-1997
<CASH>                                             131
<SECURITIES>                                     1,111
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,723
<ALLOWANCES>                                        77
<INVENTORY>                                      5,722
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                11,712
<PP&E>                                           7,715
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,701
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  22,088
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            7,966
<BONDS>                                          4,565
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        568
<COMMON>                                         1,416
<OTHER-SE>                                       3,968
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    22,088
<SALES>                                         22,653
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                23,471
<CGS>                                           16,058
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   21,320
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   616
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   267
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 359
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    909
<INCOME-TAX>                                       344
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                565
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       565
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.32
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.25
        

</TABLE>