alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
2015 #523 Page 

### #06-15-00080-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

SIXTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TEXAS

TEXARKANA TEXAS

JOHN W BOWERS (APPELLANT)

v

BANK OF AMERICA NA AS SUCCESSOR BY MERGER TO BAC HOME

LOANS SERVICING LP f/k/a COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS

SERVICING LP (APPELLEE)

__________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the rotating Court of Travis County: 250 th 

### Judicial District

Court Travis County Texas; Trial Court Case #D-1-GN-12-002006:

Honorable Karin Crump, Presiding; NOT Stephen Yelenosky

__________________________________________________________________

APPELLANT’s DOCKETING STATEMENT

TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS:

Comes now Appellant, John W Bowers, who files the above:

1 32.1(a)(1)

John W Bowers is the appellant who is represented & whose contact

information is shown below.

2 32.1(c)

The Trial Court information is shown above; the date of the

judgment/order appealed is August 12, 2015 – the denial of the Motion for

New Trial which was NOT overruled by operation of Law.

3 32.1(d)

The date of the filing of the Motion for New Trial was May 29, 2015.

1 ACCEPTED

06-15-00080-cv

SIXTH COURT OF APPEALS

TEXARKANA, TEXAS

12/28/2015 8:12:51 AM

DEBBIE AUTREY

CLERKComment [RK]:

2015 #523 Page 4 32.1(e)

Appellees have been represented by various attorneys: the most current

of which is: Mark D Cronenwett, mcronenwett@mzwlaw.com

, Mackie Wol f

Zietntz & Mann PC, 14160 N Dallas Pwky #900, Dallas Texas 75254, (214)

635-2670

– phone, (214) 635-2686

– fax.

5 32.1(f)

The general nature of the case is breach of contract, fraud & deceptive

trade practices!

6 32.1(g)

This is not a priority appeal. A CLERK’s RECERD REQUEST HAS

ALREADY BEEN FILED THIS MORNING BUT THE PAYMENT OF THEIR

FEE HAS YET TO BE DETERMINED AS THE AMOUNT IS UNKNOWN?

7 32.1(h)

No court reporter’s record will be requested.

8 32.1(l)

No supersedeas bond has been filed.

9 32.1(m)

Additional information: Thank you for altering the undersigned as to

procedural irregularities

– hopefully this docketing statement is sufficient

WHEREFORE the undersigned prays that this is sufficient.

Respectfully submitted,

Robert Stuart Koelsch

State Bar No 11652020

22015 #523 Page 

### PO BOX 4790

Lago Vista, Texas 78645-0008

(713) 882-7259

– Phone

(877) 216-5373

– Fax

rkoelsch2013@yahoo.com

Authorized Lawyer

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND CONFERENCE

I certify that a true & correct copy of the foregoing has been served in

compliance with TRCP upon the other side(s) on or near the file stamp date,

without further consultation.

Robert Stuart Koelsch

3
June 25, 2015 

Ms. Alissa Norland 

3700 42nd Street South 

Fargo, ND 58104 

Dear Ms. Norland: 

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from 

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we can not process your 

request and what you should do in the next 30 days. 

Why We Can Not Process Your Request 

We entered your June 11, exemption request into the public docket (No. FAA-2015-2238), 

but we are unable to process your request any further. The information you sent does not 

comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any 

further, you must send us all of the following: 

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the 

relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief. 

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole. 

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption 

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you 

seek an exemption. 

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request. 
2 

What You Should Do 

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described 

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your 

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption. 

If We Do Not Hear From You 

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you 

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

Brenda Robeson 

Program Analyst, Airmen and 

 Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
Exhibit 35
                                  ----------


                      COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING LP


                             OFFICERS' CERTIFICATE
                    ANNUAL STATEMENT OF THE MASTER SERVICER


                                  CWABS, INC.
                 CWABS ASSET-BACKED CERTIFICATES TRUST 2006-23
                   ASSET-BACKED CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-23


      The undersigned does hereby certify that the undersigned is an officer
of Countrywide GP, Inc., general partner of Countrywide Home Loans Servicing
LP (the "Master Servicer"), and does hereby further certify pursuant to
Section 3.17 of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement for the above-captioned
Series (the "Agreement") that:

(i) A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the preceding
calendar year and of the performance of the Master Servicer under the
Agreement has been made under my supervision; and

(ii) To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer
has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material
respects throughout such calendar year.




/s/ Craig Baingo                                  Dated: March 14, 2007
-----------------

Craig Baingo
Executive Vice President, Finance
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Juan Antonio MARTINEZ-HERNANDEZ, Defendant-Appellant

No. 17-40315 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed December 20, 2017

Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Juan Antonio Martinez-Hernandez, Pro Se

Before JONES, DENNIS, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Juan Antonio Martinez-Hernandez-has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Martinez-Hernandez has hot filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 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 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT

I, Michael J. Antonoplos, Chief Executive Officer of Biofield Corp. and I, Joseph Repko, Chief Financial Officer of Biofield Corp. (the "Company"), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)

the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the quarter ended June 30, 2007 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

(2)

the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





| | Date: November 19, 2007 | By: /s/ Michael J. Antonoplos 
                    Michael J. Antonopolos
                    (Chief Executive Officer)
| | ----------------------- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | Date: November 19, 2007 | By: /s/ Joseph Repko Joseph Repko
               (Chief Financial Officer)
#### Norman Kevin WILKERSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harold W. CLARKE, Dir. of VDOC, Respondent-Appellee, and Commonwealth of Virginia, Respondent.

No. 17-7059

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: December 13, 2017

Decided: January 19, 2018

Norman Kevin Wilkerson, Appellant Pro Se. Virginia Bidwell Theisen, Senior Assistant Attorney General, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before KEENAN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Norman Kevin Wilkerson seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition.* The order is not *188appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (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 district 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 petition 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 Wilkerson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauper-is, deny the pending motions, 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*

*

 Wilkerson has also filed a supplemental notice of appeal from the magistrate judge’s earlier order denying his motion for release pending review. We may exercise jurisdiction only *188over final orders, and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, of the district court. *See*28 U.S.C. §§ 1291, 1292 (2012). Except when a magistrate judge acts under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2012), we lack jurisdiction over appeals from a magistrate judge's order. *See United States v. Baxter,*19 F.3d 155, 156-57 (4th Cir. 1994).
Prepared by R.R. Donnelley Financial -- Letter Agreement between Constar/Pepsi-Cola Co.



  
 Exhibit 10.17 
  
 CONFIDENTIAL 
  
 December 17, 2001 
  
 Mitch Adamek 
 1 Pepsi Way 
 Somers, NY 10589-2201

  
 Dear Mitch: 
  
 Pursuant to our last discussion [***] associated with the latest projection we received from Cathy Lesko. To formalize this agreement I have attached a signature page for
both of us to sign and exchange copies. 
  
 Hopefully, you can appreciate the [***] 
  
 Finally, we are finalizing the [***] and should have that completed next week. Based on our agreement, [***]. I will touch base with you
next week to make sure we are in agreement with the final number. 
  
 Sincerely, 

 
 /s/ Michael J. Hoffman 
  
 Michael J. Hoffman 
  
 

	[***]  
	Confidential treatment requested 
 

  
 
	 Pepsi Resin Agreement — 2002
 	    	 1
 
	 
	 CONFIDENTIAL
 	    	 12/19/2001
 

 
 









  
 AGREEMENT ACCEPTANCE FORM 
  
 The undersigned are duly authorized to execute this Agreement on behalf of CONSTAR and Pepsi. 
  
 
	 CONSTAR, Inc.
 	  	 Pepsi-Cola Company
 
	  	  	  	  	  	  	  
	 Signature:
 	  	 /s/    Michael J. Hoffman
 
	  	 Signature:
 	  	 Mitch Adamek
 

	 Print Name:
 	  	 Michael J. Hoffman
 
	  	 Print Name:
 	  	 Mitch Adamek
 

	 Title:
 	  	 President
 
	  	 Title:
 	  	 V.P. Global Procurement
 

	 Date:
 	  	 12/17/01
 
	  	 Date:
 	  	 1/10/02
 


 
  
 
	 Pepsi Resin Agreement — 2002
 	    	 2
 
	 
	 CONFIDENTIAL
 	    	 12/19/2001
III

Calendar No. 183

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. RES. 168

[Report No. 104–137]

Concerning the Select Committee on Ethics Investigation of Senator

Packwood of Oregon.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

SEPTEMBER 8 (legislative day, SEPTEMBER 5), 1995

Mr. MCCONNELL, from the Select Committee on Ethics, reported the following

original resolution; which was placed on the calendar

RESOLUTION

Concerning the Select Committee on Ethics Investigation

of Senator Packwood of Oregon.

1 Resolved, That pursuant to article 1, section 5, clause

2 2 of the United States Constitution, Senator Packwood

3 is expelled from the Senate for his illegal actions and im4 proper conduct in attempting to obstruct and impede the

5 Committee’s inquiry; engaging in a pattern of sexual mis6 conduct in at least 18 instances between 1969 and 1990;

7 and engaging in a plan to enhance his financial position

8 by soliciting, encouraging and coordinating employment
2

SRES 168 PCS

1 opportunities for his wife from individuals with interests

2 in legislation or issues which he could influence.

Calendar No. 183

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. RES. 168

[Report No. 104–137]

RESOLUTION

Concerning the Select Committee on Ethics

Investigation of Senator Packwood of Oregon.

SEPTEMBER 8 (legislative day, SEPTEMBER 5), 1995

Placed on the Calendar
**EXHIBIT 31.2****CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT**I, Anthony A. Scalese, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of QualMark Corporation (the“small business issuer”);  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statements of materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, theperiods presented in this report;  4. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relatingto the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;b) [Paragraph omitted in accordance with SEC transition instructions contained in SEC release34-47986.]c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report basedon such evaluation; andd) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer’s most recent fiscalquarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the smallbusiness issuer’s internal control over financial reporting; and 5. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small businessissuer’s auditors and the audit committee of small business issuer’s board of directors (orpersons performing the equivalent function):a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the smallbusiness issuer’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; andb) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: November 13, 2007                                                                              /s/ Anthony A. Scalese   Anthony A. Scalese   Chief Financial Officer &Principal Accounting Officer
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 732 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to improve the opportunity for 

veterans to use video conferencing for hearings before the Board of 

Veterans’ Appeals. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 4, 2015 

Mr. RUIZ (for himself, Mrs. WALORSKI, Ms. NORTON, Mr. CARTWRIGHT, Ms. 

BROWNLEY of California, Mrs. NAPOLITANO, Mr. JOLLY, Ms. KUSTER, 

Mr. HONDA, Mr. MCGOVERN, Mr. THOMPSON of California, and Mr. 

RANGEL) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to improve the 

opportunity for veterans to use video conferencing for 

hearings before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Veterans Access to 

5 Speedy Review Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. BOARD OF VETERANS’ APPEALS VIDEO HEARINGS. 

7 Section 7107 of title 38, United States Code, is 

8 amended— 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 732 IH

1 (1) in subsection (d), by amending paragraph 

2 (1) to read as follows: 

3 ‘‘(1)(A) Upon request for a hearing, the Board shall 

4 determine, for purposes of scheduling the hearing for the 

5 earliest possible date, whether a hearing before the Board 

6 will be held at its principal location or at a facility of the 

7 Department or other appropriate Federal facility located 

8 within the area served by a regional office of the Depart9 ment. The Board shall also determine whether to provide 

10 a hearing through the use of the facilities and equipment 

11 described in subsection (e)(1) or by the appellant person12 ally appearing before a Board member or panel. 

13 ‘‘(B) The Board shall notify the appellant of the de14 terminations of the location and type of hearing made 

15 under subparagraph (A). Upon notification, the appellant 

16 may request a different location or type of hearing as de17 scribed in such subparagraph. If so requested, the Board 

18 shall grant such request and ensure that the hearing is 

19 scheduled at the earliest possible date without any undue 

20 delay or other prejudice to the appellant.’’; and 

21 (2) in subsection (e), by amending paragraph 

22 (2) to read as follows: 

23 ‘‘(2) Any hearing provided through the use of the fa24 cilities and equipment described in paragraph (1) shall be 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 732 IH

1 conducted in the same manner as, and shall be considered 

2 the equivalent of, a personal hearing’’. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 57 (Thursday, March 24, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 16737]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-06210]



[[Page 16737]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION

[Docket No. 22-05]


Foreign Tire Sales, Inc., Complainant, v. Evergreen Shipping 
Agency (America) Corp.; as agent for Evergreen Line, Evergreen Group d/
b/a Evergreen Line, Respondent; Notice of Filing of Complaint and 
Assignment

    Notice is given that a complaint has been filed with the Federal 
Maritime Commission (Commission) by Foreign Tires Sales, Inc., 
hereinafter ``Complainant'', against Evergreen Shipping Agency 
(America) Corp.; as agent for Evergreen Line, Evergreen Group d/b/a 
Evergreen Line (Evergreen), ``Respondents''. Complainant alleges that 
Respondent Evergreen Shipping Agency (America) Corp. is a corporation 
existing under the laws of the State of New Jersey and agent for 
Evergreen, a vessel-operating common carrier.
    Complainant alleges that Respondents violated 46 U.S.C. 41102(c), 
41104(a)(2), 41104(a)(5), 41104(a)(9), and 41104(a)(10) with regard to 
refusal to provide space on their vessels. The full text of the 
complaint can be found in the Commission's Electronic Reading Room at 
https://www2.fmc.gov/readingroom/proceeding/22-05/.
    This proceeding has been assigned to Office of Administrative Law 
Judges. The initial decision of the presiding office in this proceeding 
shall be issued by March 20, 2023, and the final decision of the 
Commission shall be issued by October 4, 2023.

    Served: March 18, 2022.
William Cody,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-06210 Filed 3-23-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6730-02-P
lt>AHDr«Li a tlDiaHA L AIIPOIt T



# G IDAHO FALL S rn-»r n

Ai]eiist23.20U ] Hi e HooonU e R ^ LaHoo d Secrets ^ of

l^oispattatu n ILS . DepatmBi t

ofTnmspaitalio n 40 0 7tliSlnetS W WashinelDivD C 2059 0 D H TSecretn y LaHood : Th e Iddi o nd k

EleB><>n dAnpor t (niU^ ) serve s th e Ui^s t axamunit y i neastETQ bU ^ jtMrtwtf^nt^ftmrt,ftnrt^n^iMiilltMw^^nimtJjmfmtl^tinnm*xr^virfMnn,nOn . AsofAuCUS t 22,2010 . WeloStWesdMIUIKlai r servic e tpBop e an d odiertoeakiii s i n th e Pacifi cItotliwgM . suc h Mg(MUl^Poidaiid,Spotaii a Ma d No ^ a s wd l a s CDOiecticm s t D intenuiiaiu l dcstiiuliaD S fro m llios e Iniljs . 

### Thi s dHog p i s no t

du e to aUd c o f

dcBiaiid , wliid i i s dbiBidanL[ioDe s flyine wes t 6w nIdali o Fal b ai ^ pafta'd . an demp ^ seat s ar e th e Mceptinnralhe r tha nth e mle . Instea dth e dianeeKsuk s fromHorixon'siiKenu i deosia o It ) laDv e t o a siiie ^ airotof t 6eet i I fan t Wjiiacedbyaiipdii fcaiTier.di e los s o f thes e Horiaonfli^aaiqireseid s a«oiifirantbliiwtprEgUMia l ecnnnnii r derdqiientOurbipmesslmili i i idBweiniUfrt-jKyiestmaiiTe s nee d ai r«ecBStoonrsUteca|«tJii i Boise , jiii s aifpoi t i s Sa h [jk e <Sly , a 3,S-hoa rdrive . 

### OB Tcopiinpniq f

i s hian e t o dieldd»HaticmaiI^buwu»y , th e CeuiijturAdTapge dEnerg y Stm^ ^ eciBhwcieJ wiriiih e US . Bjveiiiiueui . Midsevera l UayaerinJliga l an dmpdiraieon^Mme^inchi^ ^ Ttm i Mirt<«»»» l PJA ^ •»MI4 I a xM^l»Wil»minna I <ti»««r« , «f a l»wnrr« , am i KIMI-jnr.»atiM> J .li»Oit>arimw - AjlaMM j 

### reeJooa l Evciil s (^otB'i nIdal u Rd b ivlhe r fiieb th e nee dfar

rehibfe ii^bairad/aiitboim dUah aFal k ai ^

* ""ftirai H \n ¥'i f»i r' • • " " " " ^ *l-lia''y^ y"V ^

cignili«-»iitlyhnr rJ Tm. ^ »»(j.im l pnrttl i tMtrtrm- t -tmrym i ra n lul p n t joniMrt^ ^

tM « «B«a»iAmgMim i lan-bn-a l .<t ynllw-tji < an d ilir[tml»iaill l tlil l II I illwiljf j lllUllllla l lll' W I WVJ I > |IHHill n I j.Mlna«iltT..»»»t»fr»ufcti.i«i«tii«tl>art-aM»ran4»'illrti»>uil».i l nmamam r«<iiiia>n . W e dMjrfbr e StTOP ^ SimW l lli e 

### ne w vKsdMNnK

l senio a«i dw e iBBeyt w t D psBB t mu' s reqaes t

/ /•" " . ••; , (.i7u<i|' ' .A"'f - .•'•''V Presdoi t 

## '-i^-Ytl-Jf^,-- lind aK , KartB , CEc

D CE O CC s M^arlaredndiriniaaldalt o Fall s LenNdsan,IFIt A 1S 1 Noitt i Ridge . Suit e 13 a Mah o Fofe . I D KM0 2 PH : 20S-522-a014/FX20B-£32-3a24/TalFf««M0-f00-20> 4

www.growidatKi4afe.ar 9

Idah o Fall s Regiona l Airpor t - Smal l Communit yAi rServic e Developmen t Gran t - Augus t 201 0 

# 2 0