alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Served: October 12 , 2012



### UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY WASHINGTON, D.C.

Applications of Frontier Airlines , Inc., Southwest Airlines Co., and US Airways, Inc. , For exemptions from 14 C.F.R. Part 93, Subparts K and S,

P ursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 41718( b ), Special rules for Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport ( within

- perimeter slot exemptions) Docket DOT

- OST

- 20 00

- 7182

NOTICE

By Order 2012

- 7

- 26 ( July 24 , 2012)

, the Department reallocated two “ within

- perimeter” slot exemptions at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport (DCA) to US Airways, Inc. for a daily nonstop roundtrip to Jackson

- Medgar Wiley Evers International Airport (JAN)

. The Departmen t also directed US Airways to file in in the Docket

, no later than ten business days after the service date of the O rder, their proposed flight schedules and effective dates of operations authorized by the O rder.

By this notice, we are assigning slot times in the 1300 hour for the two exemptions awarded by Order 2012

- 7

- 26 to US Airways

. The assigned slot exemption times indicate the hourly period s during which the slot exemption s must be operated, but not the precise departure and arrival times.

We acknowledge that a carr ier may wish to propose changes that may be necessary to optimize the slot exemption times listed above

. A c arrier may seek authorization from the FAA Slot Administration Office to temporarily exchange assigned slot exemption times with other slots or slot exemptions in a different hour for the purpose of conducting operations authorized by Order 2012

- 7

- 26

. In acting on such requests, the FAA will employ standard practices in conjunction with applicable statutory and regulatory requirements for the utilization of slot times between and among individual air carriers.

Regardless of subsequent slot time excha nges, the slot times assigned by this notice will be fixed. Furthermore, if any of the service granted by Order 2012

- 7

- 26 is suspended, the Department will withdraw the slot exemptions based on their fixed slot time s

.- 2

-

We shall serve a copy of this notice on Frontier Airlines, Inc. , Southwest Airlines Co., US Airways, Inc

. , the Federal Aviation Administration Slot Administration O ffice, and the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority.

By:

SUSAN L. KURLAND Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs

Dated: October 1 2 , 2012

(SEAL)

An electronic version of this document will be available on the World Wide Web at: http:// www.regulations.gov
#### DEN ON DEMISE OF FABIUS D GIBBS v. SAMUEL BROOKS.

'Tin! Count'- Court liar no power to authorise an amendment in the return of a levy of It Jurt.ee’s execution upon laud, by a constable, after the salo of the

Ejectmfnt, tried before his' Honor Judge Ellis, at the Spring Term, 1854, of Hyde Superior Court.

The plaintiff claimed title under a sale by the sheriff of Hyde, under *a-venditioni,*founded upon a Justice’s judgment, and a levy upon the premises in question by a constable. The levy made by the constable, and endorsed on the execution in his hands, was as follows :

*449“ This day levied on Silvester G. Swindell’s right and title of land that he inherited by Jackson Swindell, dec’d, this March 24th, 1849.” (Signed.)

After the sale of the land levied on, and after the commencement of this action, to wit, at May Term 1854, the County Court of Hyde granted leave to the constable to amend his levy *nunc pro tunc,*which was accordingly done, so as to be as follows:

“ This day levied on Silvester G. Swindell’s right in a tract of land adjoining Fabius D. Gibbs, and Festus A. Gibbs* on Wysocking creek, March 24th, 1849.” (Signed.)

It was contended by the defendant’s counsel that the original levy was defective, and did not authorize the proceedings had upon it, and that the amendment exceeded the power of the County Court, and was therefore void. .Ilis Honor being of this opinion, the plaintiff .took a non suit, and appealed to this Court.

No counsel for the plaintiff.

*Donnell,*for the defendant.

Battle, J.

The amendment in this case was allowed after the sale under a *venditioni*exponas, and the County Court had no power to make it, as was expressly dec'dod by this Court at the last Term, at Morganton, in the case of Phillipse v. Higdon, Busb. Rep. 380. The judgment of non-smt was proper, and must be affirmed.

Per Cuejam. Judgment affirmed.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RAFAEL SANCHEZ HERRERA, AKA Jose Luis Sanchez Herrera,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 17

- 72578

Agency No. A095

- 739

- 942

MEMORANDUM *

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

Submitted March 4, 2019 **
Pasadena, California

Before: KLEINFELD , Circuit Judge, COLE, Chief Circuit Judge, *** and NGUYEN, Circuit Judge.

Rafael Sanchez Herrera, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review

of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 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 Ransey Guy Cole, Jr., Chief Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation. 

# FILED

APR 3 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2

immigration judge (“IJ”) order of removal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8

U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition.

Aliens in immigration proceedings have a constitutional and statutory “right

to be represented by counsel at [their] own expense.” Gomez

- Velazco v. Sessions

,

879 F.3d 989, 993 (9th Cir. 2018). We review for abuse of discretion the IJ’s

decision not to continue a hearing to allow additional time to find counsel. Arrey

v. Barr

, 916 F.3d 1149, 1158 (9th Cir. 2019)

. An IJ’s failure to “inquire

specifically as to whether [the] petitioner wishes to continue without a lawyer” or

“receive a k

nowing and voluntary affirmative response” may constitute an abuse of

discretion. Tawadrus v. Ashcroft , 364 F.3d 1099, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004).

Here, i n finding that Sanchez Herrera had “not demonstrated good cause for

additional time to look for an attorney ,” the IJ assumed that Sanchez Herrera

wanted one to represent him at the merits hearing. In light of this assumption, t he

IJ’s failure to ask if Sanchez Herrera wanted to proceed without an attorney was

not an abuse of discretion.

Sanchez Herrera was giv en a 26

- day continuance to find counsel. Although

he was in custody and primarily sp o k e Spanish , his sister wa s a U.S. citizen. T he

continuance provided Sanchez Herrera sufficient time to obtain counsel to

represent him at a bond hearing. Under these ci rcumstances, 26 days was a3

“reasonable time to locate counsel ” for the merits hearing, Arrey

, 916 F.3d at 1158

,

and the IJ’s denial of a second continuance was not an abuse of discretion. 1

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

1 We reject, as unsupported, Sanchez Herrera’s bald assertion that he “was erroneously placed in removal proceedings.” S ee Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(8); Tamayo

- Tamayo v. Holder , 725 F.3d 950, 952 (9th Cir. 2013).
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, David K. Spohr, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Diversified Futures Trust I for the period April 1, 2009 to June 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Registrant.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                   |  |                                                          
|------------------ |  | ---------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ David K. Spohr
|Name:              |  | David K. Spohr                                           
|Title:             |  | Senior Vice President and Director of Fund Administration
|                   |  | (Principal Financial/Accounting Officer)                 
|                   |  | Kenmar Preferred Investments Corp.,                      
|                   |  | Managing Owner of                                        
|                   |  | Diversified Futures Trust I                              
|                   | 
|Date:              |  | August 11, 2009
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 31.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, Billy F. Mitcham, Jr., certify that:

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Mitcham Industries, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements
made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included 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 in this report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; and

c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal
quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report)
that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors
(or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting.

/s/ Billy F. Mitcham, Jr.
-------------------------
Billy F. Mitcham, Jr.
Chief Executive Officer
September 15, 2003
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-7769

KEVIN MICHAEL HIGGINS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

JOHN DOE #1, Police Officer; JOHN DOE #2, Sergeant; JOHN DOE NUMBER THREE, Police Officer;

JOHN DOE #4, Sergeant; JOHN DOE #5, Police

Officer; JANE DOE #1, Police Officer,

Defendants - Appellees,

and

KURT SCHMOKE, Mayor City of Baltimore;

LAWRENCE BELL, President Baltimore City Counsel; THOMAS FRAZIER, Commissioner, Baltimore

City Police Department,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, District Judge.

(CA-96-5-WMN)

Submitted: April 17, 1997 Decided: April 30, 1997

Before NIEMEYER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.
2

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
1 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (1994); FED. R. CIV. P. 54(b).

2 See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10

F.3d 1064 (4th Cir. 1993).

3

Kevin Michael Higgins, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the dismissal without prejudice of his 42

U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. Appellant's claims against Defendants John and Jane Doe were dismissed without prejudice due to

his failure to effect service of process. This court may exercise

jurisdiction only over final orders, and certain interlocutory and

collateral orders.1 Because Appellant could save this action by

providing the court with John and Jane Doe's true names and addresses in order for process to be served, the dismissal that

Appellant seeks to appeal is not an appealable final order.2

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.

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.
4

DISMISSED
**Exhibit 21.1**

 

**List of Registrant’s Subsidiaries as of June 30,2010**

 
| ** **                                     | ** ** | **Jurisdiction of** |
|------------------------------------------------|------------|---------------------|
| **Name**                                       | ** ** | **Incorporation**   |
|                                           |       |                |
| Aeroflex  Asia Ltd.                            |       | Hong  Kong          |
| Aeroflex  Asia Pacific Ltd.                    |       | England             |
| Aeroflex  Burnham Ltd.                         |       | England             |
| Aeroflex  Cambridge Ltd.                       |       | England             |
| Aeroflex  Colorado Springs, Inc.          |       | Delaware            |
| Aeroflex  France SAS                           |       | France              |
| Aeroflex  Gaisler AB                           |       | Sweden              |
| Aeroflex  GmbH                                 |       | Germany             |
| Aeroflex  High Speed Test Solutions, Inc. |       | Delaware            |
| Aeroflex  / Inmet, Inc.                   |       | Michigan            |
| Aeroflex  Japan K.K.                           |       | Japan               |
| Aeroflex  / KDI, Inc.                     |       | Michigan            |
| Aeroflex  Limited                              |       | England             |
| Aeroflex  / Metelics, Inc.                |       | California          |
| Aeroflex  Microelectronics (Nanjing) Co. Ltd.  |       | China               |
| Aeroflex  Plainview, Inc.                 |       | Delaware            |
| Aeroflex  RAD, Inc.                       |       | New  York           |
| Aeroflex  / Weinschel, Inc.               |       | Michigan            |
| Aeroflex  Wichita, Inc.                   |       | Delaware            |
| MicroMetrics, Inc.                        |       | New  Hampshire      |
| VI  Technology, Inc.                      |       | Texas               |

 

1

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>



<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the Meridian
Sports Incorporated Consolidated Balance Sheet and Statement of Operations and
is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                             519
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    6,972
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     14,765
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                23,842
<PP&E>                                          25,011
<DEPRECIATION>                                (11,873)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  38,767
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           23,865
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            80
<OTHER-SE>                                       5,077
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    38,767
<SALES>                                         84,288
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                84,288
<CGS>                                           77,153
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   77,153
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                23,375
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,228
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (725)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     6,958
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (7,683)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  1,332
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (9,015)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.13)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.13)
        








</TABLE>