alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, D.C.
In the Matter ofHeloair, Inc.**~~->"-·'~;:,.-~-..::-- _,;-~.-v·-.c-** **-::--.~---::--** -- -**~--=~~=** --**.o_-~---- ~** **-~---** -- 

# RECEIVED SEP 12 2012 

## HEARING DOCKET

Docket No. FAA-2012-0472, Case No. 2011-EA-210081 

# -o

__________________________ t;y C) 

### JOINT PROPOSED DISCQVERY PLAN ..£') 

### The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), by counsel, and Respondent, Heloair, Inc., by counsel, herebyjointly file a proposed discovery plan as follows: (l) Deadline for filing written discovery requests- November 1, 2012; (2) Deadline for filing responses to 

### written discovery requests
- within 35 days ofservice ofdiscovery requests; (3) Deadline for filing motion to compel -within 10 days of the due date for responding to 

### the discovery requests at issue;**"'""".;;....._··::...--:-'"-~ -----~----~------~-----**  ·--.- ---_;:--,-, ---**-~-----** .. -.--::-**.-~-** 

### (4) Deadline for taking depositions-**Januazy-f2o13;~~** 

### - (5) Deadline for exchange of witness list (including summary of anticipated testimony of each witnesses) and exhibit list (including providing copies of listed exhibits)- January 15, 2013; (6) Deadline for filing ofdispositive motions

- February 1, 2013; (7) Deadline for filing reply to dispositive motion- within 10 days ofthe motion;(8) Deadline for filing counter-reply with respect to the dispositive motion

- within 5 days ofthe reply); (9) Hearing in Richmond, VA- Apri19-10, 2013.
Respectfully submitted, 

### "·-.**~~-~,~-~- ~w,~--AUi:e£lR.JohnSOOr]r,.**  Regional Counsel

By:

# ZoohmyM~ Attorney Federal Aviation Administration 1 Aviation Plaza Jamaica, NY 11434 718 553-3258 718 995-5699 Date: September 7, 2012 G.-Butler, III,Esq.,:.Counsel-for 

### Respondent-

_ ----**--~-~** 

### __ :ANDS ANDERSON, PC Bank ofAmerica Center 1111 East Main Street, Suite 2400 Richmond, VA 23219 FAX: (804)783-7291 718 995-5699 Date: September 7, 2012**~:-;=o~---:-;--** ------- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certifY that the foregoing Joint Proposed Discovery Plan has been sent this date via first class mail and telefax to the following: John G. Butler, III, Esq. SANDS ANDERSON, PC Bank ofAmerica Center 1111 East Main Street, Suite 2400 Richmond, VA 23219 FAX: (804)783-7}9_!_

__**----~-** _________________--,--------

-------- - -**-~** The Honorable J. E. Sullivan, Administrative Law Judge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportatation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) Washington, DC 20590 FAX: (202)366-7536 I hereby certifY that the foregoing Joint Proposed Discovery Plan has been sent this date via first class mail to the following: Federal Aviation Administration (Original and one copy) 800 Independence Avenue, S. W. Washington, D.C. 20591 Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building

- Room 20 14

Date: September 7, 2012 -- --- ---------------- _,_____**---------------------~** 

### ----

# .0~**~oks** Paralegal Specialist Federal Aviation Administration Office ofRegional Counsel 1 Aviation Plaza Jamaica, NY 11434

3
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>5
 
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS CONTAINED IN THE COMPANY'S FORM 10-QSB AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
 
<MULTIPLIER>1
       
<S> <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                             6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                              MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                                   SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                                         275,745
<SECURITIES>                                                   997,442
<RECEIVABLES>                                                  652,855
<ALLOWANCES>                                                   25,600
<INVENTORY>                                                    1,151,931
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                               3,702,848
<PP&E>                                                         3,303,755
<DEPRECIATION>                                                 1,250,130
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                 10,118,340
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                          3,040,070
<BONDS>                                                        2,764,414
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                          0
<PREFERRED>                                                    0
<COMMON>                                                       323,495
<OTHER-SE>                                                     3,268,113
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                   10,118,340
<SALES>                                                        2,429,425
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                               2,831,537
<CGS>                                                          2,188,805
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                  2,188,805
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                             179,859
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                618,795
<INCOME-TAX>                                                   138,161
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                0
<CHANGES>                                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                                   480,634
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                .16
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                  0
        

</TABLE>
#### Anonymous.

The action of account will not lie for a legatee against an executor, oi the executor of such executor.

Account. The jury had found a verdict for the Plaintiff, subject to the opinion of the court, upon th" question wh rher this action will lie against the executor of one, wiio as executor took the goods of the testator into his possession, and hired out the n-groes. &e. This suit was commenced by on;- of several legatees. In the argument of his case, were cited *3 Bl.Com.164. Reeves’s Eng. Law*391. *2 Reeves*168, 169. 3 *Dyer 277. Per curiam,*this action will not lie iu the present case. The writ of account lieth against a man as guardian, bailiff or receiver; and by statute, against the exerutors of such; hut ir lietn <iot against an yxeeiifo- wlc mak*s a profit of the estate of the deceased, nor against his executor--’ *260for the law hath provided other means to call an exec a to> to account, where all the legatees must join in one suit, and not each one of them barrase the executor with a separate- suit. There is not any authority to shew, that an executor was ever charged in account, as guardian ; whatever he. recovers is assets for the, whole estate, and not the particular property of any special legatee. There is no privity between the legatee and executor, which is essentially necessary to the support of this action. *Co. Litt.*172. The executor does not act, by the appointment or choice, of the legatee, as is the case with the guardian ; but by the appointment of the leffatur; though the guardian shall have an allowance of all his reasonable costs and expeuces. Co. *Litt.*89. And so it may be thought no inconvenience to the executor to be charged that way, it is convenient, in this, that he is chargeable thereby by each legatee whereas in the modes anciently prescribed in the cases of executors, they must al! join. K would not only be a perversion of terms, but a great wrong to the executor *to charge*him as baililf, who is liable to account not only fur the profits he actually made, hut for all such as he might have made by industry and care ; and as a receiver he ought not to he charged in this action, beca use tiie receiver is not to be allowed any expencea or charges which an executor may be by 1715, c. 48, s. 7.—So there was judgment for the Defendant.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-11232

Summary Calendar

In the Matter of: ALAN LESLIE HIMBER,

 Debtor.

ALAN LESLIE HIMBER,

Appellant,

VERSUS

THOMAS D. POWERS; N.B.H. LIQUIDATING TRUST; R. CARTER PATE,

Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Northern District of Texas

(3:96-CV-1719-T)

May 8, 1997

Before JONES, DeMOSS, and PARKER.

PER CURIAM:*

Appellant Alan Leslie Himber (“Himber”) appeals the district

court’s dismissal of his appeal from the bankruptcy court’s
2

settlement approval. The district court dismissed Himber’s appeal

because (1) Himber failed to provide the court with all of the

items designated as part of the record on appeal thus presenting a

deficient record in violation of Bankruptcy Rule 8006, and (2)

Himber did not timely file his appellate brief, in violation of

Bankruptcy Rule 8009. We review such decisions for an abuse of

discretion. In re Braniff Airways, Inc., 774 F.2d 1303, 1304-05

(5th Cir. 1985). After having reviewed the record and the parties’

arguments, we fail to see any abuse of discretion by the district

court in its decision to dismiss Himber’s appeal and we AFFIRM the

district court.
<PAGE>


                                                                      Exhibit 23

                    CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

     As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation
of our reports included in this Form 10-K, into the Company's previously filed
Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-94439), Form S-3/A (No.333-89683),
Form S-3/A (No. 333-35846), Form S-8 (No. 333-50259), Form S-3/A (No. 333-84115)
and Form S-3 (No. 333-50008).


San Antonio, Texas                                 /s/ ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP
October 26, 2001
1

Daniels, Nia (FAA)

From: Daniels, Nia (FAA)

Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2015 9:59 AM

To: 'Anthony@aerialvisionchicago.com'

Cc: '333exemptions@faa.gov'

Subject: Request for Additional Information: Aerial Vision Chicago (FAA-2015-1188)

June 24, 2015 

Dear Mr. LaRosa: 

This letter is to inform you that the following information is missing from your petition (Docket No. FAA2015-1188). This information is necessary for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to process your 

petition. 

 Provide a copy of the Motion Picture and Television Operations Manual (MPTOM) which is required by 

Order 8900.1, Volume 3, Chapter 8, Section 1. If you wish for us to proceed without this manual and 

remove closed-set filming from your proposed operation please inform of us of your intention by the 

requested response date listed below. 

Please submit the additional information (non-proprietary) to your docket at www.regulations.gov and submit 

any proprietary information to the FAA Headquarters or electronically via e-mail to 

333exemptions@faa.gov. If you want us to process your request any further, we must receive the information 

described above by July 8, 2015. If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without 

notifying you further. 

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (202) 267-9677. 

Sincerely, 

Nia Daniels 

Program Analyst 

Nia Daniels, ARM‐108

Federal Aviation Administration

Office of Rulemaking, Airmen & Airspace Rules Division

800 Independence Avenue, SW

Washington, DC 20591

PH: (202) 267 ‐ 7626

Fax: (202) 267 ‐ 5075

nia.daniels@faa.gov
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM THE CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND RELATED STATEMENT OF INCOME AS OF
DECEMBER 31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          14,494
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   95,880
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,964
<INVENTORY>                                     32,640
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               152,417
<PP&E>                                          45,117
<DEPRECIATION>                                  22,879
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 218,135
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           95,835
<BONDS>                                         11,557
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           403
<OTHER-SE>                                     103,708
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   218,135
<SALES>                                         92,555
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               147,233
<CGS>                                           47,291
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   81,658
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,290
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 16,693
<INCOME-TAX>                                     6,677
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              9,721
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     9,721
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.60
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.57
        

</TABLE>
----

            COUNCIL DECISION         

of 19 June 2006         

laying down the amount of Community support for rural development for the period from 1 January 2007 to 31 December 2013, its annual breakdown and the minimum amount to be concentrated in regions eligible under the Convergence Objective

(2006/493/EC)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 of 20 September 2005 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (1), and in particular Article 69(1) thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,

Whereas:

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Sole Article

The total amount of commitment appropriations for Community support for rural development for the period from 1 January 2007 to 31 December 2013 under Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, its annual breakdown and the minimum amount to be concentrated in regions eligible under the Convergence Objective defined in Article 2(j) of that Regulation are set out in the Annex to this Decision.

Done at Luxembourg, 19 June 2006.

For the Council

The President

J. PRÖLL            

----

(1)OJ L 277, 21.10.2005, p. 1.

(2)OJ C 139, 14.6.2006, p. 1.

----

ANNEX

Total amount of commitment appropriations for 2007-2013, its annual breakdown and the minimum amount to be concentrated in the regions eligible under the Convergence Objective and its annual breakdown (*1)

----

(*1)  Before compulsory modulation and other transfers from market-related expenditure and direct payments of the common agricultural policy to rural development.

(*2)  The amounts stated are rounded to the nearest million, while programming will be done to the nearest euro.

----
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 1111111111111111MMERIN 

THE SECRETARY SECRETARY OF DEFENSE 

WASHINGTON 

6 July 1965 

C‘, 

MEMORANDUM FOR THE SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE 

Please arrange for any press release on the MOL to be 

cleared by the Director of the National Reconnaissance Office 

and through Mr. McNaughton with the State Department before 

submitting it to Mr. Vance and to me for review. 

Robert S. McNamara 

cc: ASD(ISA)1 

• *; 

Vi
#### STATE v. MALLOY ALLRED.

*False Pretence^ Indictment.*

Defendant was indicted under Bat, Rev, ch. 32, § 66, and the facts found by a special verdict were that he sold to prosecutor a pair of shoes at; $1.40, received therefor $1.50, and paid him the ton cents change in counterfeit coin ; *Held,*not guilty of obtaining mouey by false token,

*(State*v. Reese, 88 1ST. C., 637, cited and approved.!

INDICTMENT for cheating by false tokens, tried at Spring Term, 1880, of Randolph Superior Court, before *Seymour, J.*

The state appealed from the ruling of the judge upon the special verdict.

*Attorney General,*for the State.

*Mr. Jas. T. Morehead,*for the defendant,

Smith, C. J.

The defendant is charged with obtaining from one David J. Staley, by means of a counterfeit half-dime which the defendant knew to be such, good and lawful money of the United States of the'value of sixpence, with intent to cheat and defraud the said Staley. On the trial, the jury rendered a special verdict in which they find that the defendant sold a pair of shoes to the prosecutor af-ilie price of one dollar and forty cents, and received inpayment one and a half dollars in two pieces of silver coin. The defendant paid the difference in two spurious half-dimes to the prosecutor, knowing that they were spurious and worthless. Upon these facts, His Honor being of opinion that they do not constitute the offence designated in Battle’s Bevisal, ch. 32, § 66, directed a verdict of not guilty to be entered, and from the judgment thereon the solicitor appeals.

The essence of the offence imputed to the defendant con*750sists in his obtaining the money of the prosecutor by means of and through the false and fraudulent pretence involved in passing two spurious as and for genuine half-dimes of the coinage of the United States, and in this aspect bears an analogy to those forms of larceny where (under pretence of hiring) a person with felonious intent gets possession of and converts the property of another to his own use. In such case, there is no legal assent to the change of possession in consequence of the vitiating effect of the fraud by which it was brought about.

The money of the prosecutor was not obtained by any fraudulent representation or practice by which he was induced to part with it, nor does it appear that any intent to cheat or defraud entered the mind of the defendant before he received it, and the criminality of his cpnduct is in paying over the change due, in counterfeit coin, that is, in passing counterfeit money with a knowledge of its character, and this is not the crime with which he is charged.

While w7e are not called Upon to determine the sufficiency of the bill of. indictment in form to warrant judgment had it been authorized by the verdict, yet to avoid an inference of our approval we suggest whether there is definitely described the property alleged to have been obtained from the prosecutor under the opinion in the recent case of *State*v. *Reese,*83, N. C., 637,

There is no error. Let this be certified, &c.

Per Curiam. No error.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                         INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S CONSENT



April 5, 2001

The Board of Directors
U.S. Plastic Lumber Corp.


We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in each Prospectus
constituting a part of the Registration Statements on Forms S-3 (File No.
333-32148, 333-86533, 333-76845), Form S-4 (File No. 333-84047), and Form S-8
(File No. 333-76277) of our report dated March 30, 2001, relating to the
consolidated balance sheets of U.S. Plastic Lumber Corp. and subsidiaries as of
December 31, 2000 and 1999 and the related consolidated statements of
operations, stockholders' equity and cash flows for the years then ended which
are included in the Company's December 31, 2000 Annual Report on Form 10-K.

We also consent to the reference to us under the caption "Experts" in the
Prospectus included in the foregoing Registration Statements.

/s/ KPMG LLP
--------------------
KPMG LLP

Miami, FL
April 5, 2001
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS

The Board of Directors

Braintech, Inc.

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (No. 333-64872 and 333-92253) on Form S-8 of Braintech, Inc. (a development stage enterprise) of our report dated February 12, 2003, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Braintech, Inc. as of December 31, 2002 and 2001, and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders' equity (deficit) and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2002 and for the period from inception on January 3, 1994 to December 31, 2002, which report appears in the December 31, 2002, annual report on Form 10-KSB of Braintech, Inc. Our report dated February 12, 2003 contains an explanatory paragraph that states that the Company has incurred recurring losses from operations and used cash in operating activities which raise substantial doubt about its ability to continue as a going concern. The consolidated financial statements do not include any adjustments that might result from the outcome of that uncertainty.

KPMG LLP (signed)

Chartered Accountants

Vancouver, Canada

March 27, 2003