alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
March 4, 2015 

Mr. A.J. Muldoon 

Office of Aviation Analysis 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

West Building, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE 

Washington D.C. 20590 

Reference DOT-OST-2000-8322 

Dear Mr. Muldoon, 

NEBRASKA 

The City of Alliance, Nebraska along with The City of Chadron, Nebraska herein submits its community comments 

regarding Essential Air Service and the four carrier proposals that have been submitted to the Department. We are 

extremely grateful to all four airlines, Boutique Air, Gem Air, Great Lakes and Via Air, for their air service proposals and 

all four carriers did visit each our cities and interview with us. 

All four carriers proposed 12 round trip per week service to Denver; Boutique with a PC12, Gem Air and Via Air with 

Navajo equipment and Great Lakes with a nine seat Beech 1900D. The Great Lakes proposal paired Alliance with 

Chadron, the other three airlines proposed Alliance and Chadron service by a dedicated aircraft nonstop back and forth 

from each city. 

The City of Alliance and The City of Chadron, after careful consideration, endorses the proposal of Boutique Air to 

provide Essential Air Service at Alliance and Chadron. 

We went through an exhaustive review of each carrier's proposals and listened carefully to each carrier during their 

presentations and question & answer sessions during their visits to Alliance and Chadron. We would have been happy 

with any of the three carriers, Boutique, Gem Air or Via Air. Boutique's proposals win our endorsement by a narrow 

margin over Gem Air and Via Air. 

Our only caveat on our endorsement is that we require TSA sterile operation into Denver International and have advised 

Boutique that they must gain TSA certification for such an operation and gain access to the main terminal at Denver. 

We request that the Department award the new EAS contract to Boutique Air. Should there be an issue with the TSA 

certification or Denver main terminal access prior to carrier service startup we will contact the Department immediately 

in order to put a hold on the Department's contract with Boutique pending satisfaction of the TSA certification and main 

terminal access requirements. 

We want to thank the Department for supporting us in our participation in the EAS program. We also again thank all four 

carriers for their interest in providing our EAS air service. I have attached each resolution from each City Council for 

your reference. 

Best regards 

\~n n \\~ . ~llt&L Lyn(~. Placek; Airport Manager 

111r The City of Alliance~ P.O. Box D ~Alliance, NE 69301 ~ 308-762-5400
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y A lton Thomas Davis,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk September 9, 2010

d0830 

# Order

September 9, 2010

140501(45)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 140501 COA: 294407 Wayne CC: 88-002394; DANNY RAY DUNLAP, 88-003080 Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the motion for rec onsideration of this Court’s June 28, 2010 order is considered, and it is DENIED, beca use it does not appear that the order was entered erroneously.
#### Myhrna BLACK, FKA Myhrna Tenente, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Nathan Todd YOUNG, Ninth Judicial District Court Judge; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-15730

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 8, 2017 *

Filed March 23, 2017

Myhrna Black, Pro Se

D. Randall Gilmer, Deputy Attorney General, AGNV—Office of the Nevada Attorney General (Las Vegas), Las Vegas, NV, for Defendant-Appellee Nathan Todd Young

Caryn S. Tijsseling, Esquire, Attorney, Lemons, Grundy & Eisenberg, Reno, NV, for Defendant-Appellee Alfonso Tenente

Holly S. Parker, Esquire, Attorney, Wayne Alan Shaffer, Esquire, Attorney, Laxalt & Nomura, Ltd., Reno, NV, for Defendants-Appellees Judy M. Sheldrew, Law Office of Karen L. Winters

Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Myrhna Black, FKA Myhrna Tenente, appeals pro se from the district court’s *515judgment dismissing her action alleging federal and state law claims arising from the issuance of a subpoena in a Nevada state court proceeding. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). *Hebbe v. Pliler,*627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir. 2010). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Black’s constitutional claims under 18 U.S.C. §§ 241 and 242 because those statutes do not provide a basis for civil liability. *See Aldabe v. Aldabe,*616 F.2d 1089, 1092 (9th Cir. 1980) (holding that §§ 241 and 242 do not provide a basis for civil liability).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Black’s state law claims after dismissing Black’s federal claims. *See*28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (permitting district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction if it has “dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction”); *Costanich v. Dep’t of Soc. & Health Servs.,*627 F.3d 1101, 1107 (9th Cir. 2010) (standard of review).

Contrary to Black’s contention, the district court properly denied defendants’ motions to dismiss as moot after dismissing the federal claims and declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.

Black’s request (Docket Entry No. 18) is denied.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Stephen Sylvester WALKER, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-7633

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 23, 2017

Decided: May 25, 2017

Stephen Sylvester Walker, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Michael Clayton Hanlon, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland; Scott Andrew Lemmon, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before KING, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Stephen Sylvester Walker, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certifícate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012), When the dis*760trict court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Walker has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process,

*DISMISSED*
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Election Commission

# TIME AND DATE:

Thursday, March 10, 2022 at 10:00 a.m.

# PLACE:

                        Hybrid meeting: 1050 First Street NE, Washington, DC (12th floor) and virtual.                         *Note:*                         Due to the covid-19 pandemic, the FEC's hearing room remains closed to visitors for the near term as we implement procedures for the public to safely attend. If you would like to access the meeting, see the instructions below.                    

# STATUS:

                        This meeting will be open to the public. To access the virtual meeting, go to the commission's website                         *www.fec.gov*                         and click on the banner to be taken to the meeting page.                    

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

 

Draft Advisory Opinion 2022-01: Joan Farr for U.S. Senate OK and KS.

Revised Form 1.

Resubmission: Audit Division Recommendation Memorandum on Mike Braun for Indiana (A19-02).

Management and Administrative Matters.

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

Judith Ingram, Press Officer, Telephone: (202) 694-1220.

*Authority:*                         Government in the Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552b.                    

Laura E. Sinram,

Acting Secretary and Clerk of the Commission.

[FR Doc. 2022-04687 Filed 3-2-22; 11:15 am]

BILLING CODE 6715-01-P
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

 
 

Exhibit 10.4
  
    Loan Equipment Agreement between NPS Ltd.
  And Accu-Tech Systems, dated November 16, 1999    
  





 
Loan Equipment Agreement 



	Customer:	 	NPS LTD	 	Fax No.:	 	0181-947 9545
	

Contact:	
 	

PETER DRYSDALE	
 	

Position:	
 	

Director
	

Equipment Requested: Sens 2000	
 	

Equipment Return Date:







        In
response to your request to loan the above equipment for the purpose of demonstration or evaluation, we require your signed acknowledgment of the conditions below prior to arranging
shipment of the equipment to you. 


        1.    The
equipment is shipped to you free of charge for the purpose of demonstration or evaluation. The goods must not be re-sold without receiving prior written
consent from Accu-Tech Systems. 



        2.    The
cost of shipping the goods to you will be borne by Accu-Tech Systems. Return shipping charges for the equipment must be payable by you, and should be made
by a carrier which provides a means of proof of delivery to avoid any disputes. 


        3.    Responsibility
for insuring the equipment remains with you, until such time as the goods are received back by Accu-Tech Systems. 


        4.    The
equipment must be returned after the loan period has expired. If the equipment is not returned within the time period agreed, an invoice will be issued for the
current value of the goods contained within our price list. 


        5.    The
goods must be returned in their original packaging with any accessories, manuals etc. that were originally supplied with the equipment. 


        6.    Any
damage to, or loss of the equipment will be charged for at our current rates. 


        We
look forward to receiving your completed form, whereupon we will arrange shipment of the equipment to you as soon as possible. 


        We
hereby agree to the above loan conditions: 



	Name:	 	/s/
 Authorised Signatory	 	Position:	 	Director

	

Order Number:	
 	

    
	
 	

Date:	
 	

16-11-99





1









QuickLinks


Exhibit 10.4 Loan Equipment Agreement between NPS Ltd. And Accu-Tech Systems, dated November 16, 1999
Flo Mahboob Rana 

~ ~ Manager, Simulator QualiBcaGon 

August 21, 2014. 

Mr, Lany McDonald 

Air Transporfalion DivisionlNaGonal 

Simulator Program Branch, AFS-205 

Federal Avialion Administration 

P.O. Box 20636 

Aganta, GA 30320 

Mr, Robert H. Frenzel 

Manager, Operalion Law Branch, 

Office of the Chief Counsel, Regulalions Division (AGC-200) 

Federal Aviafion Administration 

800 Independence Avenue SW 

Washinglon, DC 20591 

Subject: Flight Simulation Training Device Qualiflcation Standards for Extended Envelope and 

Adverse Weather Event Tasks Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

Dear Mr. McDonald and Mr. Frenzel, 

FlightSafety International kindly requests that the Federal Aviation Adminisfralion grant an ezlension to 

the current comment period for the above men6oned subject. We request ihat lhe FAA exlend fhe 

commenl period for an addilional 90 days. We would like to review the FAA proposed lenglhy document 

thoroughly which will require more time to prepare our responsefsignificant comments for submittal. 

FlightSafety Interna6onal is looking forward to working with the FAA, Please conlact me if I can be of any 

assislance in lhis matler. 

Sincerely, ~ k: 

Mahboob Rana 

Manager, Simulafor Qualihcation 

C.C: Steve Fedynyszyn 

Steve Krull 

Greg Arend 

Nidal Sammur 

700 Nodh 9"' SVeet - Broken Arrow, Oklahoma 74012•2847 USA - Tel +1.918.259.4100 - Fax+1.918.251.5597 

AktMre HaOroxreycompany 1 iS0900I:20C8FS 72832Regifted
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 828 

To amend title 31, United States Code, to clarify the use of credentials 

by enrolled agents. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 10, 2015 

Mr. BOUSTANY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend title 31, United States Code, to clarify the use 

of credentials by enrolled agents. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. CLARIFICATION OF ENROLLED AGENT CRE4 DENTIALS. 

5 Section 330 of title 31, United States Code, is 

6 amended— 

7 (1) by redesignating subsections (b), (c), and 

8 (d) as subsections (c), (d), and (e), respectively, and 

9 (2) by inserting after subsection (a) the fol10 lowing new subsection: 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 828 IH

1 ‘‘(b) Any enrolled agents properly licensed to practice 

2 as required under rules promulgated under subsection (a) 

3 shall be allowed to use the credentials or designation of 

4 ‘enrolled agent’, ‘EA’, or ‘E.A.’.’’. 

Æ 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 10.2


 


May 22, 2012


 


Cloud Star Corporation


Formerly Accend Media


P.O. Box 4906


Mission Viejo, CA 92690


 


RE: LOCK-UP AGREEMENT


 


Gentlemen:


 


The undersigned, a director and major security holder of Cloud Star
Corporation, formerly known as Accend Media) a Nevada corporation ((the "Company"), understands that the Company is the
process of building its business and infrastructure. This lock up agreement adds a level of protection to new investors, to prevent
the undersigned from liquidating his stock holdings and adversely affecting the market of the stock.


 


The undersigned is the record owner of 60,000,000 shares of the
common stock of Cloud Star, par value $0.001 per share (the "Shares), and understands that some of their Shares may be eligible
for sale under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, subject to certain limitations included in said Rule.


 


It is further agreed that:


 


1.The undersigned will not sell
any of their shares of the common stock owned by the undersigned, directly or indirectly, until May 23, 2013.


 


2.The undersigned acknowledges
that Globex Transfer, LLC, 780 Deltona Blvd., Suite 202, Deltona, FL 32725, the authorized transfer agent for the Company, has
been advised of the restrictions described herein and that any attempts by the undersigned to violate said restriction may result
in legal action(s) by the Company. The undersigned further agrees, upon the request of the Company, that in addition to any other
restrictions reflecting that the Shares have not been registered under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, may be placed on
individual certificates issued.


 


THIS LOCK-UP AGREEMENT SHALL BE GOVERNED BY AND CONSTRUED IN ACCORDANCE
WITH THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, WITHOUT REGARD TO THE CONFLICT OF LAWS PRINCIPLES THEREOF.


 


Sincerely,


 


/s/ Safa Movassaghi


Safa Movassaghi


 


cc: Globex Transfer, LLC
## FAA MCAI AD \VORKSHEET (CONTINUED) Contacts. 

### With whom outside the FAA has this proposal been discussed? Organization Person Contacted Date 

### Response :\'ati onal Business Aircraft **A:-.~m~ at**  **on** El i Cott i 12/19 / 14 Regiona l Ai r l ine Association 12119114 , \inTaft **Onm~rs** & Pilots Associa t ion l {obert Hac k man 12119114

- \irlincs for America Robert ln·land 12 / 19/ 14
#### INTERMETRO INDUSTRIES CORPORATION, Appellant v. ENOVATE MEDICAL, LLC, Appellee

2016-2153

2016-2162

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

May 9, 2017

Glenn E. Forbis, Harness, Dickey & Pierce, PLC, Troy, MI, argued for appellant, Also represented by David Utykanski, George Dimitrios Moustakas, Neal D. San-born.

Norman H. Zivin, Cooper & Dunham, LLP, New York, NY, argued for appellee. Also represented by Richard S. Order, Adam Benjamin Marks, Updike, Kelly & Spellacy, PC, Hartford, CT.

(Prost, Chief Judge, Mayer and Wallach, Circuit Judges).

JUDGMENT

Per Curiam

This Cause having been heard and considered, it is Ordered and Adjudged:

AFFIRMED. *See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5894 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

114th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5894

To repeal a limitation in the Labor-Management Relations Act regarding 
   requirements for labor organization membership as a condition of 
                              employment.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 14, 2016

   Mr. Sherman (for himself, Mr. Kildee, Ms. Bass, Mr. Becerra, Mr. 
   Brendan F. Boyle of Pennsylvania, Ms. Brownley of California, Mr. 
  Cardenas, Ms. Judy Chu of California, Mr. Cicilline, Mr. Clay, Mr. 
Conyers, Mr. Cummings, Mrs. Dingell, Mr. Ellison, Mr. Engel, Ms. Eshoo, 
    Mr. Farr, Mr. Garamendi, Mr. Grayson, Mr. Honda, Mr. Johnson of 
Georgia, Ms. Kaptur, Ms. Lee, Mr. Ted Lieu of California, Ms. Lofgren, 
   Mr. Lowenthal, Mr. Lynch, Mr. McGovern, Mr. Meeks, Ms. Moore, Mr. 
Nadler, Mrs. Napolitano, Ms. Norton, Mr. Pallone, Mr. Payne, Mr. Pocan, 
 Mr. Ryan of Ohio, Ms. Linda T. Sanchez of California, Ms. Schakowsky, 
 Mr. Sires, Ms. Speier, Mr. Swalwell of California, Ms. Velazquez, Mr. 
  Visclosky, and Mrs. Watson Coleman) introduced the following bill; 
   which was referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To repeal a limitation in the Labor-Management Relations Act regarding 
   requirements for labor organization membership as a condition of 
                              employment.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Eliminate So-Called Right-to-Work 
Legislation Nationwide Act of 2016''.

SEC. 2. REPEAL.

    Section 14 of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 164) is 
amended by striking subsection (b) and redesignating subsection (c) as 
subsection (b).
                                 <all>
```
#### John CHMIELEWSKI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TMS INTERNATIONAL, LLC, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 17-1042

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Submitted May 4, 2017 *

Decided May 8, 2017

John Chmielewski, Pro Se

David J. Pryzbylski, Attorney, Barnes *&*Thornburg LLP, Indianapolis, IN, for Defendant-Appellee

Before MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge, DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge, DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge

*

 We have agreed to decide the case without oral argument because the appeal is frivolous. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2)(A).

ORDER

John Chmielewski sued his employer, TMS International, LLC, for following IRS instructions in a “lock-in” letter to withhold taxes from his wages despite his asserted tax exemption. Chmielewski requested that his withheld funds be re*487turned and that TMS cease withholding. The district court dismissed Chmielewski’s claims because it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over his request for injunctive relief and he had not otherwise stated a claim. The court noted that the suit was foreclosed by our ruling in *Edgar v. Inland Steel Co.,*744 F.2d 1276, 1278 (7th Cir. 1984), in which we stated that “[e]m-ployees have no cause of action against employers to recover wages withheld and paid over to the government in satisfaction of federal income tax liability.”

On appeal Chmielewski continues to assert that he is exempt from federal income tax and says that *Edgar*was wrongly decided because the plaintiffs there were also exempt. But this is not a “compelling reason” to overturn our precedent. *United States v. Lara-Unzueta,*735 F.3d 954, 961 (7th Cir. 2013). The judgment is AFFIRMED.

TMS moved for appellate attorney’s fees and costs under Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. Chmielew-ski has not responded. The district court warned him in its dismissal order that his tax-protestor arguments were frivolous, and this appeal is also frivolous. *See Edgar,*744 F.2d at 1278 (“This lawsuit represents yet another disturbing example of a patently frivolous appeal filed by abusers of the tax system merely to delay and harass the collection of public revenues.”). TMS’s motion is GRANTED, and TMS shall file its bill of fees and costs within 14 days of the date of this order.