alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
To whom it may concern,
I would like to recommend Paul Eisenhart II for the appointment cif Designated Mechanics.Examiner. I have known Paul for about 10years. We worked together in the past on both reciprocating and turbine engine aircraft in Martinsburg, West Virginia. In the years that I have known him, he has demonstrated integrity in his work practices, sound judgment in his decision making, and professionalism with the customers and his fellow mechanics. Paul was always willing to provide assistance, and was willing to learn new skills and procedures. He maintained a good attitude and a high level ofquality and safety in the work he did on aircraft. It is my opinion that because ofthese characteristics, Paul would be an ideal candidate for the DME. Sincerely,PIITSBURGH INSTITUTE OF AERONAUTICS P. 0. Box 10897 • Pittsburgh PA 15236-0897 (412) 346-2100 o (412) 462-9011 o FAX (412) 466-0513 

### November 3, 2015 Dear Sir orMadam: I ampleasedto extend this letter ofrecommendation for Mr. Paul Eisenhart, aninstructorhere at Pittsburgh Institute ofAeronautics, for a DesignatedMechanical Examiner. Duringthe time that Mr. Eisenhart has been an instructor, I have beenmost impressed withhis abilityto handle students and their instruction, while maintaining an outstanding relationship with his peers. Hehas always been firm, fair, using soundjudgment, andprofessionalism. Without bias orpartiality, he is willing to assist onthe propertechniques to perform an approved repair. I recommend Paul Eisenhart for DME, Designated Mechanical Examiner. Yours Truly,

BernardAdams Campus Director Pittsburgh Institute ofAeronautics badams@pia.edu 412-915-2234
No. 90-610.

#### Walther *v.*United States.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### In Re Philip Alfred BLAIR, Jr., Bankrupt. Philip Alfred BLAIR, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. COMMISSIONER OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 1139, Docket 80-5003.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Argued May 1, 1980.

Decided May 7, 1980.*

Opinion Feb. 26, 1981.

Stephen J. McGovern, Asst. Atty. Gen., Hartford, Conn. (Carl R. Ajello, Atty. Gen. of Conn., Hartford, Conn., of counsel), for defendant-appellant.

Francis X. Dineen, New Haven, Conn., for plaintiff-appellee.

Before FEINBERG, VAN GRAAFEI-LAND and KEARSE, Circuit Judges.

*

This appeal was originally heard on May 1, 1980 and was decided by order, dated May 7, 1980. Such a summary disposition has no precedential value under our Local Rule § 0.23. However, in a recent related appeal, the panel thought it advisable to refer to our order in this case. Accordingly, we repeat the substance of that order in this per curiam opinion, which will be published.

PER CURIAM:

The Commissioner of Administrative Services appeals from an order of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, T. F. Gilroy Daly, J., affirming a ruling of bankruptcy judge Robert E. Trevethan that Philip Alfred Blair was discharged from a $12,716.64 debt that he owed to the State of Connecticut. The only issue raised on appeal is whether the bankruptcy judge erred in ruling that Section 328 of Title III of the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978 (BRA), Pub.L.No.95-598, 92 Stat. 2549, was applicable to the instant proceeding. We hold that this ruling was correct, substantially for the reasons set forth in the opinion of bankruptcy judge Trevethan, dated August 27, 1979, 4 B.R. 14.

Section 328 of Title III of the BRA repealed § 456(b) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 656(b), which provided that a child support obligation assigned to a state under 42 U.S.C. § 602(a)(26) is not dis-chargeable. in bankruptcy. Section 328 became effective on November 6, 1978, see § 402(d) of Title IV of the BRA, and it was therefore the applicable law here, since it was in effect at the time the dischargeability of the debt was determined. See, e. g., *In re Carter,*32 F.2d 186, 188 (2d Cir. 1929). We agree with the bankruptcy judge that by enacting § 328 Congress intended to make a child support obligation assigned to a state immediately dischargeable and we therefore affirm the judgment of the district court.

*70Under the circumstances, there is no need to discuss appellant’s other arguments, in-eluding his claim that such debts were non-dischargeable prior to the enactment of § 456(b) of the Social Security Act. Compare, e. g., *Williams v. Dept. of Social and Health Services,*529 F.2d 1264 (9th Cir. 1976) with *In re Kiluk,*CCH Bankruptcy Law Rep. ¶ 65,681 (D.Conn.1975).
#### Spring Creek Threshing Company, Appellant, vs. Industrial Commission of Wisconsin and another, Respondents.

*April 29*

June *23, 1930.*

*E.*N. *Jedney*of Black River Falls, for the appellant.

For the respondent Industrial Commission there was a brief by the *Attorney General*and *Mortimer Levitan*and *F. C. Seibold,*assistant attorneys general, and oral argument by *Mr. Seibold.*

Fairchild, J.

The members of the court are equally divided upon this appeal, Chief Justice Rosenberry, Mr. Justice Owen, and Mr. Justice Fritz being of the opinion that the judgment should be reversed. Mr. Justice Stevens, Mr. Justice Fowler, and the writer are of the opinion that the judgment should be affirmed.

Under the rule the judgment appealed from is affirmed.

*By the Court.*— Judgment affirmed.
Exhibit 21.1

Subsidiaries of the Registrant

Acme
Packet HK Ltd., a limited company organized under the laws of Hong Kong.
100% owned by Acme Packet, Inc.

Acme
Packet Japan KK, a corporation organized under the laws of Japan.
100% owned by Acme Packet, Inc.

Acme
Packet Securities Corp., a corporation organized under the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
100% owned by Acme Packet, Inc.

Acme
Packet UK Ltd., a limited company organized under the laws of the United Kingdom.
100% owned by Acme Packet, Inc.

Acme
Packet International, Inc., a Delaware corporation. 
100% owned by Acme Packet, Inc.

---



QuickLinks
OFFIC E O F TH E COMMISSIONE R SEA N PARNELL . GOVERNO R 313 2 CHANNE L DRIV E P O Bo x 11250 0 JUNEAU , ALASK

A 99811-250 0 FAX : PHONE : (907 ) 586-836 5

(907 ) 465-390 0 Novembe r

16 , 201 0 Mr . Denni s J . DeVany Chief , EA S an dDomesti c Analysi s Offic e o f Aviatio n analysi s U.S . Department

o f Transportatio n 120 0 Ne w Jerse y Avenue , S E Washington , D C 2059 0 RE : DOT-OST-1995-49 2 ~ J 

### V '•> ? e n o • •- • '--• - O

- ^' " .7 * -> • 

# ^3 S nn^ m 

### oo o o o Dea r Mr . DeVany : Thi s lette r i s t o expres s suppor

t fo r th e continuatio n o f

th e Essential ai r

Servic e (EAS ) progra

m in Alask aan dth e crucial connectio n i t bring s t o ou r

remot e communities . Du e t o th e isolate dlocatio n o f thes e communitie s an dth e complet e lac k o f any roadsyste m connection , thi s subsidize dai r servic e i s thei r

onl y for mo f schedule dtransportation . Th e communitie s o f

McCarthy , Gulkan aan dMa y Creek depen do n schedule dai r

freight , passenger an dmai l servic e fo

r basi c necessities , routin e medical andhealt h services , an deconomi c welfare . Th e State o f

Alask acontinue s t o asser t that th e local resident s ar e bes t positione dto comment

o n particula r schedule s o r

ai r carrier s an dtherefore w e leav e thos e specifi c area s fo r th e communit

y t o comment

on . I respectfull y urg e USDO T t o suppor t an dcontinu e th e EA S servic e a t McCarthy , Gulkana , and Ma y Creek .

Mar c Limfe n Deput y Commissione r

- Aviatio n Cc : Le o vo n Scheben , Commissioner , DOT&PF

"ProviJini : fo rth e Siif e movi'inen t o f penpl e iin J ^ooJ s an d tht ' Jeliver y o j sini c vi/n/' i f.v . '
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-4830-15T3

ALISA DIAMOND, f/k/a

ALISA LICHAW,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

STEPHEN LICHAW,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________________________

Submitted May 16, 2017 – Decided

Before Judges Espinosa and Suter.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, 

Chancery Division, Family Part, Bergen County, 

Docket No. FM-02-0861-10.

Stephen Lichaw, appellant pro se.

Respondent has not filed a brief.

PER CURIAM

The parties in this post-judgment matrimonial matter entered 

into a consent order in January 2013 that transferred exclusive 

jurisdiction of the matter to the Family Court of Nassau County 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." 

Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the 

parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R.1:36-3.

July 28, 2017
2 A-4830-15T3

in New York. Defendant filed a motion seeking, among other relief, 

a declaratory judgment that New Jersey has exclusive jurisdiction 

over all issues relating to custody, visitation and child support, 

based upon his assertion that plaintiff breached terms of the 

consent order. That motion was denied. Defendant then filed a 

motion for reconsideration, which was denied by order dated May 

16, 2016. Defendant appeals from the denial of his motion for 

reconsideration. We affirm, substantially for the reasons 

articulated by Judge Gary N. Wilcox in his thoughtful and wellreasoned written decision.

Affirmed.
No. 86-955.

#### Steag Handel GmbH *v.*Hawley Fuel Coalmart, Inc., et al.

C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 82-741.

#### International Association of Machinists & Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO *v.*Lubbers, General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, et al.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### In re FORM-EZE SYSTEMS, INC., Employer ID No. 85-0206297, Debtor.

Bankruptcy No. 80-00611 M A.

United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Mexico.

Dec. 15, 1982.

Gerald F. Bennett, Albuquerque, N.M., for debtor.

Jerrald J. Roehl, Albuquerque, N.M., for Inryco, Inc.

Norman S. Thayer and Gail Gottlieb, Albuquerque, N.M., for Chanen Const.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

MARK B. McFEELEY, Bankruptcy Judge.

This matter having come before the Court on the motion to dismiss appeal filed by Inryco, Inc., and the Court having reviewed said motion, the brief submitted therewith, and the response to said motion and the brief submitted therewith, the Court finds:

1. Oral argument in this matter is not necessary.

2. This Court entered its order on October 13, 1982, denying Chanen Construction Company, Inc.’s motion to set aside previous orders of this Court.

3. On October 18, 1982, Chanen Construction Company, Inc., filed its notice of appeal to the United States District Court. If, in fact, the Court’s order of October 13, 1982, is found to be an interlocutory order, then pursuant to Local Rule 31(b)(4) of the Dist.Ct. of the Dist. of N.M., such “notice of appeal shall be deemed a timely and proper application for leave to appeal.”

4. Once a notice of appeal is filed from an order of the bankruptcy court, the bankruptcy court is without jurisdiction to proceed with respect to the matters raised by such appeal. This lack of jurisdiction encompasses the ability to rule with respect to procedural defects with respect to such appeals. In fact, as can clearly be seen from the language of Local Rule 31(b)(4), it is the district court acting as an appellate court which is given the authority to determine whether an order is interlocutory, whether a notice of appeal is to be treated as an application for leave to appeal, and whether such application should be granted or denied. *O'Neill Production Credit Assn.*v. *Olson (In re Olson),*9 B.C.D. 435, 22 B.R. 473 (Dist.Ct.D.Neb.1982). *See also Little-*
      *591
      *ton Nat’l Bank*v. *Coleman American Companies, Inc. (In re Coleman American Companies, Inc.),*3 C.B.C.2d 225, 6 B.C.D. 1289, 6 B.R. 918 (Bkrtcy.D.Colo.1980); *Harsh Investment Corporation v. Bialac (In re Bialac),*8 B.C.D. 564, 15 B.R. 901 (Bkrtcy. 9th Cir.1981).

5. Neither the exception in Rule 801(b) nor that in Rule 805, Fed.R.Bankr.P., is applicable in this case.

It clearly follows from the above findings that not only is this Court the inappropriate forum to determine whether leave to appeal should be granted, but additionally, it is without jurisdiction to consider the motion to dismiss appeal.

An appropriate order shall enter.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

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.

October 28, 2015

a1019 

# Order

Clerk October 28, 2015

147920

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 147920

COA: 317265

Jackson CC: 12

- 004455

- FH

PHILLIP DAROLD BANNISTER,

Defendant

- Appellant.

____________________________________/

By order of July 29, 2014, the application for leave to appeal the September 6,

2013 order of the Court of Appeals was held in abeyance pending the decision in People

v Lockridge (Docket No. 149073). On order of the Court, the case having been decided

on July 29, 2015, 498 Mich 358 (2015), the application is again considered. Pursuant to

MCR 7.305(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REMAND this case to the

Jackson Circuit Court to determine whether the court would have imposed a materially

diff erent sentence under the sentencing procedure described in Lockridge . On remand,

the trial court shall follow the procedure described in Part VI of our opinion. If the trial

court determines that it would have imposed the same sentence absent the

unconst itutional constraint on its discretion, it may reaffirm the original sentence. If,

however, the trial court determines that it would not have imposed the same sentence

absent the unconstitutional constraint on its discretion, it shall resentence the defen dant.

We do not retain jurisdiction.
```

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 227 (Monday, November 25, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 92946-92947]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-27534]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health

National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism; Notice of 
Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as

[[Page 92947]]

amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
    The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(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 on Alcohol Abuse and 
Alcoholism Initial Review Group; Epidemiology, Prevention and 
Behavior Research Study Section.
    Date: February 25, 2025.
    Time: 10:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Address: National Institute of Health, National Institute on 
Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, 6700B Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 
20892.
    Meeting Format: Virtual Meeting.
    Contact Person: Anna Ghambaryan, M.D., Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, Extramural Project Review Branch, Office of Extramural 
Activities, 6700B Rockledge Drive, Room 2120, MSC 6902, National 
Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, Bethesda, MD 20892, Tel: 
301-443-4032, Email: [email protected].

    Name of Committee: National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and 
Alcoholism Initial Review Group; Neuroscience and Behavior Study 
Section.
    Date: March 4, 2025.
    Time: 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Address: National Institute of Health, National Institute on 
Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, 6700B Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 
20892.
    Meeting Format: Virtual Meeting.
    Contact Person: Beata Buzas, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, 
Extramural Project Review Branch, Office of Extramural Activities, 
6700B Rockledge Drive, Room 2116, MSC 6902, National Institute on 
Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, Bethesda, MD 20892, Tel: 301-443-0800, 
Email: [email protected].

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No. 93.273, 
Alcohol Research Programs, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: November 19, 2024.
Miguelina Perez,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2024-27534 Filed 11-22-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
```
REGISTRATION NOT TRANSFERABLE 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA I This certificate 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION- FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION must be in the airCERTIFICATE OF AIRCRAFT REGISTRATION craft when operated. 

NATIONALITY AND r.:::AFT SERIAL NO. 

REGISTRATION MARKS N 604BD 

MANUFACTURER AND 

MANUFACTURER'S DESIGNATION OF AIRCRAFT 

UAV SOLUTIONS INC PHOENIX 60 

ICAO Aircraft Address Code· 51753070 This certificate is 

issued for 

I UAV SOLUTIONS INC registration purposes 

s 8280 PATUXENT RANGE RD STE E only and is not a 

s JESSUP MD 20794-8606 certificate of title. 

u 

The Federal Avialion 

E 

Administration does 

D 

not determine rights 

of ownership as 

T 

between private 

0 

persons. 

Corporation 

ll is certified that the 0 above described aircraft has been entere<i ........ -i..:,Ster of the Federal Aviation Administration, United States of America, in accor an . ~ ... onvention on 

International Civil Aviation dated December 7, 1944, and 

with Title 49, United States Code, U.S. Department 

and regulations issued thereunder. 

April 29, 201 S 

~&t:;V/ of Transportation DATE 

OF ISSUE ··:.::-:-:::=::. 

~'f~~i~~~

W-" 

i EXPIRATION DATE 

Apri l 30, 2018 ADMtl'irs'rf?ATCf-1 

AC Ftlnn 80'5-tl-3 (1012010} Supors&Gibs previous ~ltior\s 

w 

z 

::; ~ z 

0 

5 

11. 

I
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

U.S. Indo-Pacific CommandUSINDOPACOM

U.S. Indo-Pacific Command

Search

Search
Search

-  Home		 
-  Leadership    -  Commander         
  -  Deputy Commander         
  -  Chief of Staff         
  -  Senior Enlisted Leader 
-  About USINDOPACOM    -  History         
  -  USPACOM Area of Responsibility         
  -  USPACOM Previous Commanders         
  -  Women, Peace and Security 
-  Organization    -  Organization Chart 
-  Media    -  News      -  Spotlight 
  -  Photos         
  -  Speeches / Testimony         
  -  Freedom of Information Act      -  FOIA - Reading Room         
    -  Submit FOIA Request         
    -  Request Status         
    -  FOIA FAQS 
-  Resources    -  Travel Requirements         
  -  Useful Theater Information         
  -  FAQ         
  -  Useful Links 
-  Newcomers		 
-  Contact    -  Directory         
  -  Media Inquiries         
  -  Industry Engagements 
-  JTF - Red Hill		 

Home : Media : News : News Article View

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# 303rd Intelligence Squadron Innovates Internship Program

By Capt. Sergei McNulty303rd Intelligence Squadron

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

More News
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

TROY COACHMAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v.

SEATTLE AUTO MANAGEMENT, INC., DBA Mercedes Benz of Seattle; AL MONJAZEB,

Defendants

- Appellants. No. 18

- 35881

D.C. No. 2:17

- cv

- 00187

- RSM

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Washington Ricardo S. Martinez, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted November 7, 2019

Seattle, Washington

Before: GOULD and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges, and PRESNELL, ** District Judge.

Seattle Auto Management, Inc. and Al Monjazeb appeal the distr ict court’s

denial of their Rule 59 Motion for remittitur or new trial. We have jurisdiction

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The Honorable Gregory A. Presnell, United States District Judge for the Middle District of Florida, sitting by designation. 

# FILED

DEC 11 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 18

- 35881

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We affirm.

The appellants first argue that the appellee’s closing argument violated the

court’s in limine ruling with respect to the appellant’s financial condition . B ecause

the appellants failed to object at trial to the alleged misconduct, reversal is improper

unless there was “plain or fundament al” error. Settlegoode v. Portland Pub. Sch.

,

371 F.3d 503, 517 (9th Cir. 2004). “ P lain error review requires: (1) an error; (2) that

the error be plain or obvious; (3) that the error have been prejudicial or affect

substantial rights; and (4) that review be necessary to prevent a miscarriage of

justice. ” Id. While making the closing argument at issue, c ounsel used Coachman’s

value to the appellants as an analog for his personal loss. While that comparison may

have been inapt, there is no indication that it was prejudicial or affected substantial

rights. T he district court did not commit plain or fundamental error in denying the

motion for a new trial.

The appellants also argue that the ratio between the noneconomic and

economic compensatory damages renders $4,697,248 in noneconomic damages

excessive. However, Washington law does not limit compensatory damages based

on the ratio between economic and noneconomic damages. Ind eed, we will not

disturb the jury’s verdict “ unless it is outside the range of substantial evidence in the

record, or shocks the conscience of the court, or appears to have been arrived at as

the result of passion or prejudice .” Bunch v. King Cty. De p ’ t of Youth Servs. , 1163 18

- 35881

P.3d 381, 389 ( Wash. 2005) (quoting Bingaman v. Grays Harbor Cmty. Hosp. , 699

P.2d 1230, 1233 ( Wash. 1985) ) . The appellants chose not to address damages during

their closing argument

, and t here is support in the record for the size of th e damages

award ; we find no persuasive reason to disturb the jury’s verdict.

AFFIRMED.
No. 86-869.

#### D’Angelo *v.*Disciplinary Board of Supreme Court of New Mexico.

Sup. Ct. N. M. Certiorari denied.