alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
SERVED: September 25, 2013 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTER OF 

BRADLEY L. GOOD 

FAA DOCKET NO. [TO BE ASSIGNED] 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

FDMS NO. F AA-2013 - 0043 

NOTICE 

Ira Leibowitz, Attorney-Advisor is retiring on September 30, 2013. 

All future communications should be directed to the undersigned at: 

Richard C. Goodwin, 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

Office ofHearings, Attn: Room E11-310 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey, S.E. 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

(Richard.Goodwin@dot.gov) 

Administrative matters should be directed to Patricia Matthews, Staff Assistant (202) 

3 66-5121 (Patricia.Matthews@dot. gov) 

Richard C. Goodwin 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

Attachment - Service List 
----------------

........... 

2 

SERVICE LIST 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1 0001 

Michael Shannon, Respondent's Counsel 

301 E. Colorado, Suite 320 

Pasadena, CA 91101 

Bradley Lawrence Good, Respondent 

385 E. Green St, #2611 

Pasadena, CA 911 0 1 

TEL: 818-726-2101 

EMAIL: bgood@ourgroup.org 

Lierre Green, Complainant's Counsel 

ONE COPY 

Attorney, Office ofthe Regional Counsel (AWP-7.6) 

Western Region 

Federal Aviation Administration 

P.O. Box 92007 

Los Angeles, CA 90009 

TEL: 310-725-7117 

FPC(: 310-725-6816 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (E11-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-2139 Attorney-Advisor 

202-366-5121 Staff Assistant 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

FDMS No. FAA-2013-0043 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

I Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl000, Washington, 

DC 20591, Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.
II

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 2039

To require the Secretary of the Interior to convey the Corning National

Fish Hatchery to the State of Arkansas.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

APRIL 21 (legislation day, APRIL 11), 1994

Mr. BUMPERS introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on Environment and Public Works

A BILL

To require the Secretary of the Interior to convey the

Corning National Fish Hatchery to the State of Arkansas.

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 ‘‘Corning National Fish

5 Hatchery Conveyance Act of 1994’’.

6 SEC. 2. CONVEYANCE OF THE CORNING NATIONAL FISH

7 HATCHERY TO THE STATE OF ARKANSAS.

8 (a) CONVEYANCE REQUIREMENT.—The Secretary of

9 the Interior shall convey to the State of Arkansas, without

10 reimbursement and by no later than December 31, 1994,
2

S 2039 IS

1 all right, title, and interest of the United States in and

2 to the property described in subsection (b), for use by the

3 Arkansas Game and Fish Commission as part of the State

4 of Arkansas fish culture program.

5 (b) PROPERTY DESCRIBED.—The property refereed

6 to in subsection (a) is the property formally known as the

7 Corning National Fish Hatchery, and now known as the

8 William H. Donham State Fish Hatchery, located one mile

9 west of Corning, Arkansas, on Arkansas State Highway

10 67 in Clay County, Arkansas, consisting of 137.34 acres,

11 (more or less) and all improvements and related personal

12 property under the control of the Secretary that is located

13 on that property, including buildings, structures, and

14 equipment.

15 (c) REVERSIONARY INTEREST OF UNITED STATES.—

16 If after the conveyance required by subsection (a) any of

17 the property described in subsection (b) is used for pur18 poses other than as described in subsection (a), all right,

19 title, and interest conveyed under this section shall revert

20 to the United States.

Æ
**MEMORANDUM**

**DATE:** 0 3 / 04/2015 **FROM:** Laura Farris/EPA Region 8 **TO:** Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket Id: OAR
– 2013
- 0602 **SUBJECT:** Davis, Graham, and Stubbs Air Quality Summit on 0 3 / 03 /2015 **SUMMARY :**  Shaun McGrath delivered a keynote address and Carl Daly participated on a panel discussion on 0 3 / 03 /2015 on the Clean Power Plan . The meeting was held in Denver , Colorado
. The Clean Power Plan was proposed on June 2, 2014. **ATTENDEES: EPA**  Shaun McGrath, EPA Region 8 Carl Daly, EPA Region 8 **External Stakeholders** Rusty Frishmuth, Bill Barrett Corp. Laura Higgins, DCP Midstream Ursula Rick, Atmospheric Scientist Dave Neslin, DGS John Jacus, DGS Will Allison, Colorado Air Pollution Control Division Ralph Morris, ENVIRON Ken Lloyd, Regional Air Quality Council Randy Dann, DGS Jack Ihle, Xcel Energy Martha Rudolph Eric Waeckerlin, DGS General public
No. 12-8629.

#### Weir *v.*United States.

C. A. 7th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
NO. 07-01-0104-CV

	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

	FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	AT AMARILLO

	PANEL A

	JUNE 28, 2001

	______________________________

	CHERYL MCFALL, APPELLANT

	V.

	D-J INVESTMENTS, D/B/A CORONADO SHOPPING CENTER,

	PAMPA, TEXAS, APPELLEE

	_________________________________

	FROM THE COUNTY COURT OF GRAY COUNTY;

	NO. 4133; HONORABLE RICHARD PEET, JUDGE

	_______________________________

Before BOYD, C.J., and REAVIS and JOHNSON, JJ.

	Appellant Cheryl McFall brings this appeal from a judgment entered against her for unpaid rent, utility charges, and other fees owed under a lease agreement.  For the reasons expressed, we dismiss the appeal.

	The order giving rise to this appeal was entered on January 25, 2001.  The clerk’s record was thereafter filed with this court on March 22, 2001, and the docketing statement indicates there is no reporter’s record.  That being so, appellant’s brief was due to be filed on April 23, 2001.  Tex. R. App. P. 38.6(a).  To date, neither a brief nor a motion for extension of time has been filed.

	On June 7, 2001, this court notified appellant that if she did not file a response by June 19, 2001, reasonably explaining her failure to file a brief together with a showing that appellee has not been significantly injured due to such failure, the appeal would be subject to dismissal for want of prosecution.  Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1).  We have received no response.

	Accordingly, the appeal is hereby dismissed. 

							John T. Boyd

							 Chief Justice

Do not publish.
No. 12-788.

#### Hekyong Pak *v.*Ridgell et al.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
EXHIBIT 10.25


May 23, 2006


David L. Jannetta

851 Duportail Road

Wayne, PA 19087


Re: Board Matters


Dave:


This letter will serve to
confirm our discussions of the past few weeks regarding your membership on the
company’s Board of Directors and the need we have to meet the Nasdaq National
Market Rules regarding an “independent” majority on the Board.


We have agreed that,
effective today, you will resign your Class I membership and will be
re-appointed and serve as a Class II director. Class II directors are
currently serving terms which run through our annual meeting in 2007. You have
also agreed that you will voluntarily resign, without dispute or notice of
objection, effective upon the earlier to occur of 1) the appointment of a new “independent”
director to the Board, or 2) January 23, 2007.


Effective upon
your resignation in accordance with this letter agreement, one half of all
unvested stock options which you hold today will become vested. For purposes of
clarity, we agree that, as of today, you hold the following unvested options:


	
  Date of Grant

  	
   

  	
  Amount of unvested options

  	
   

  	
  Exercise Price

  	
   

  
	
  1/28/03

  	
   

  	
  9,375

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  4.50

  	
   

  
	
  7/1/03

  	
   

  	
  106,146

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0.75

  	
   

  
	
  7/30/03

  	
   

  	
  417

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0.75

  	
   

  
	
  1/28/04

  	
   

  	
  234

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0.75

  	
   

  
	
  TOTAL

  	
   

  	
  116,172

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  



 


In order to
indicate your agreement with the foregoing, please countersign this letter as
indicated below.




	
  Very Truly Yours,

  	
   

  	
  Agreed and Accepted:

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  /s/
  Mark J. DeNino

  	
   

  	
  /s/ David L. Jannetta

  
	
  Mark J. DeNino

  	
   

  	
  David L. Jannetta

  
	
  Chairman of the
  Board
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

In the interest of J.R., D.E.R., * From the 446th District Court

K.I.O., K.E.O., and S.A.O., children, of Ector County,

Trial Court No. E-19-015-PC.

No. 11-20-00219-CV * March 25, 2021

* Memorandum Opinion by Bailey, C.J.

(Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,

Williams, J., and Wright, S.C.J., 

sitting by assignment)

(Trotter, J., not participating)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there is no 

error in the orders below. Therefore, in accordance with this court’s opinion, the orders

of the trial court are in all things affirmed.
2016-1556.

#### Store Master Funding II, L.L.C. v. Delaware Cty. Bd. of Revision.

Board of Tax Appeals, No. 2015-1953. On motion to dismiss of appellee Olentangy Local Schools Board of Education. Motion denied.

O’Donnell, J., dissents.

O’Neill, J., not participating.
# DPMAP/Social Contract Information Sessions

/ Published Oct. 15, 2020
COLUMBUS, Ohio, 
The People and Culture Office conducted virtual information sessions Sept. 22 and 24 on Department of Defense Performance Management and Appraisal Program/Social Contract for new employees and new supervisors.

Using collaborative tools in a mass telework environment, the training was conducted via Skype share screen with a conference call-in.

A total of 24 new employees and 20 new supervisors attended the sessions.
#### In the Matter of Angela Becker, Respondent, v Jeffrey Herman Guenther, Appellant.

[55 NYS3d 148]

Appeal by the father from an order of commitment of the Family Court, Nassau County (Robin M. Kent, J.), dated April 13, 2016. The order of commitment, in effect, confirmed an order of disposition of that court (Eileen Daly-Sapraicone, S.M.), dated March 15, 2016, determining that the father willfully violated a prior order of child support, and committed him to the custody of the Nassau County Correctional Facility for a period of four months unless he paid the purge amount of $15,000.

Ordered that the appeal from so much of the order of commitment as committed the father to the Nassau County Correctional Facility for a period of four months is dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements, as the period of incarceration has expired *(see Matter of Larrier v Williams,*84 AD3d 805, 806 [2011]); and it is further,

Ordered that the order of commitment is affirmed insofar as reviewed, without costs or disbursements.

The father and the mother have two children together. An order of disposition dated October 16, 2015 (hereinafter the support order), directed the father to pay, among other things, $500 per week in child support. He failed to make payments and in February 2016, the mother commenced this proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4 alleging that the father was in willful violation of the support order. On March 15, 2016, the father appeared before a Support Magistrate and admitted to violating the support order. On the same day, an order of disposition was issued finding the father in willful violation of the support order. The Family Court thereafter, in effect, confirmed the order of disposition and issued an order of commitment.

*986The father’s contention that the Family Court should have held a hearing as to whether he willfully violated the support order is unpreserved for appellate review (see *Matter of Commissioner of Social Servs. v Zouhier B.,*84 AD3d 438 [2011]; *Green v Green,*288 AD2d 436, 437 [2001]). In any event, the father was not denied a meaningful opportunity to be heard *(see James W.D. v Sandra C.,*44 AD3d 423, 424 [2007]).

Moreover, the father’s claim that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel is without merit. Contrary to the father’s contentions, viewed in totality, the record reveals that the father received meaningful representation *(see Matter of Larrier v Williams,*84 AD3d 805, 806 [2011]; *cf. Matter of Nassau County Dept. of Social Servs. v King,*149 AD3d 942 [2d Dept 2017]).

Additionally, the Family Court’s determination that the father should be incarcerated was a proper exercise of discretion. The court was not required to consider alternative enforcement measures *(see Matter of Powers v Powers,*86 NY2d 63, 70-71 [1995]).

The father’ remaining contentions are without merit.

Chambers, J.P., Miller, Hinds-Radix and LaSalle, JJ., concur.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

CANDIDO REYNOLDS, §

§ No. 196, 2016

Defendant Below, §

Appellant, § Court Below—Superior Court of the

§ State of Delaware

v. §

§ Cr. ID Nos. 1302015545

STATE OF DELAWARE, § 1303009388

§

Plaintiff Below, §

Appellee. §

Submitted: August 26, 2016

Decided: October 24, 2016

Before HOLLAND, VALIHURA and VAUGHN, Justices.

O R D E R

This 24th day of October 2016, upon consideration of the appellant’s opening 

brief, the appellee’s motion to affirm, and the Superior Court record, it appears to 

the Court that:

(1) The appellant, Candido Reynolds, filed this appeal from the Superior 

Court’s denial of his motion for modification of sentence under Superior Court 

Criminal Rule 35(b). The State of Delaware has moved to affirm the Superior 

Court’s judgment on the ground that it is manifest on the face of the opening brief 

that the appeal is without merit. We agree and affirm.

(2) On March 25, 2014, immediately following his guilty plea to Reckless 

Endangering in the First Degree and Tier 4 Possession of Cocaine, Reynolds was 
2

declared a habitual offender under 11 Del. C. § 4214(a) and was sentenced as such 

to five years at Level V for Reckless Endangering. For the drug offense, Reynolds 

was sentenced to fifteen years at Level V suspended after five years for eighteen 

months of Level III probation.

(3) On February 29, 2016, Reynolds filed a motion for modification of 

sentence under Rule 35(b). By order dated March 11, 2016, the Superior Court 

denied the motion. This appeal followed. We review the denial of a motion for 

modification of sentence for abuse of discretion.1

(4) On appeal, Reynolds argues that his two consecutive five-year Level 

V terms should be modified to run concurrently as now permitted under 11 Del. C.

§ 3901(d).2 His claim is without merit. The amendment of § 3901(d), which gives 

judges the discretion to impose concurrent terms of imprisonment for certain 

crimes, does not apply retroactively to sentences imposed before July 9, 2014, the 

effective date of the amendment.3 Reynolds was sentenced on March 25, 2014. 

Under these circumstances, the Superior Court’s denial of Reynolds’ motion for 

modification of sentence was not an abuse of discretion. 

 

1

State v. Lewis, 797 A.2d 1198, 1202 (Del. 2002).

2

11 Del. C. § 3901(d) (Supp. 2016).

3

Fountain v. State, 139 A.3d 837 (Del. 2016).
3

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the motion to affirm is 

GRANTED. The judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Karen L. Valihura

Justice
Page 1

This material may be protected by US Copyright \(Title 17 US Code\) 
Page 2
Page 3
Page 4
Page 5
Page 6
Page 7
Page 8
Exhibit 23.2

            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

                       [ Letterhead of Dixon Hughes PLLC]

The Board of Directors
First South Bancorp, Inc.

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (No.
333-49759 and No. 333-104144) on Forms S-8 of First South Bancorp, Inc. and
Subsidiary of our report dated March 7, 2006, except as to the stock split
discussed in Note 1 to the consolidated financial statements which is as of May
25, 2006, with respect to the 2005 and 2004 consolidated financial statements of
First South Bancorp, Inc. and Subsidiary, which report appears in First South
Bancorp, Inc.'s 2006 Annual Report on Form 10-K.

/s/ Dixon Hughes PLLC

Greenville, North Carolina
March 12, 2007
# Second quarter military employees of the quarter

/ Published May 29, 2020

Defense Logistics Agency Energy Commander Air Force Brig. Gen. Albert Miller announced Energy’s second quarter, fiscal year 2020 military employees of the quarter.

**Field Grade Officer Category:**

Air Force Maj. Lewis Benton III, DLA Energy Headquarters

**Company Grade Category:**

Army Capt. Theodore Yost, DLA Energy East Pacific Region

**Senior Noncommissioned Officer Category:**

Air Force Master Sgt. Jason Karras, DLA Energy Headquarters

**Junior Noncommissioned Officer Category:**

Air Force Tech Sgt. Zachary Beggin, DLA Energy Americas

These DLA Energy service members went on to compete at the agency wide 2nd Quarter Military Recognition Program where Beggin won the DLA Junior Noncommissioned Officer category for the 2nd Quarter for 2020. 

DLA Human Resources decided to combine the 2nd and 3rd quarter civilian employees of the quarter and Director's Strategic Goals Awards.
Exhibit 15.1 Deloitte

Auditores y Consultores Limitada

RUT: 80.276.200-3

Av. Providencia 1760

Pisos 6, 7, 8, 9, 13 y 18

Providencia, Santiago

Chile

Fono: (56-2) 729 7000

Fax: (56-2) 374 9177

e-mail: deloittechile@deloitte.com

www.deloitte.cl


CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM








We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement No. 333-178094 on Form F-3 of our report dated April 23, 2012 relating to the consolidated financial statements of Banco Santander Chile and subsidiaries (the “Bank”) (which report expresses an unqualified opinion and contains an explanatory paragraph relating to the translation of Chilean peso amounts into U.S. dollar amounts), and our report dated April 23, 2012 relating to the effectiveness of the Bank’s internal control over financial reporting, appearing in the Annual Report on Form 20-F of Banco Santander Chile for the year ended December 31, 2011.














/s/Deloitte


Santiago, Chile


April 30, 2012
2017-1823.

#### Disciplinary Counsel v. Simmonds.

On certification of default. Rasheed Asani Simmonds, Attorney Registration No. 0067797, last known business address in Cincinnati, Ohio, suspended from the practice of law.
|                                                                                                          
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                          
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                                  
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                                            
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                                            
|View History:                                                                                             
|                                                                                                          
|Price of Elba Island, GA Liquefied Natural Gas Exports to United Kingdom (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                          
|                                                                                                          
|Price of Elba Island, GA Liquefied Natural Gas Exports to United Kingdom (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                          

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2010's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | --    
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 6.74   | W      | 11.88  | 8.25   |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 7/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 8/30/2024
1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 44147

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

FRANK LAMBERTUS,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2017 Unpublished Opinion No. 302

Filed: January 4, 2017

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, 

Elmore County. Hon. Jonathan Medema, District Judge. 

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of twenty years, with a minimum 

period of confinement of ten years, for rape, affirmed.

Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Jenny C. Swinford, 

Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney 

General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge;

and HUSKEY, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM

Frank Lambertus was found guilty of rape, Idaho Code § 18-6101(4). The district court 

imposed a unified sentence of twenty years, with a minimum period of confinement of ten years. 

Lambertus appeals, contending that his sentence is excessive.

Sentencing is a matter for the trial court’s discretion. Both our standard of review and the 

factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the sentence are well established and 

need not be repeated here. See State v. Hernandez, 121 Idaho 114, 117-18, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014-

15 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Lopez, 106 Idaho 447, 449-51, 680 P.2d 869, 871-73 (Ct. App. 

1984); State v. Toohill, 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing 
2

the length of a sentence, we consider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. Oliver, 144 Idaho 

722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record 

in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.

Therefore, Lambertus’ judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.