alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
August 6, 2015

Mr. George L. Miro

DBA: Flight Time Services, Inc

113 Santa Monica Avenue

Royal Palm Beach, FL 33411

Dear Mr. Miro:

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

part 21, subpart H, and §§ 61.113(a) and (b), 67.4(a), (b), and (c), 91.7(a), 91.121, 91.151(b), 

91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(1) and (2), and 91.417(a) and (b) of Title 14, Code of 

Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we cannot process your request and what you 

should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Cannot Process Your Request

We received your exemption request on behalf of Flight Time Services, Inc filed in Docket 

No. FAA−2015−2267 on June 15, 2015, but we are unable to process your request any 

further. Your petition 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 reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole.

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

For more detailed information relating to submitting petitions for exemption, please visit 

http://aes.faa.gov/petition/index.html. This website helps the petitioner to meet Federal 

Aviation Administration (FAA) requirements outlines in § 11.81 and helps answer any 

questions you may have.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must submit the requested information 

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. 
2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further. 

If you have any questions you may call the 333 Information Line (202) 267-2999.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brittany Newton

Program Analyst, Airmen and

 Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
3
# C_2017063EN.01000402.xml

| 27.2.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.2.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/4

---

Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 26 October 2016 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil No 3 de Barcelona — Spain) — Ismael Fernández Oliva v Caixabank SA (C-568/14), Jordi Carné Hidalgo, Anna Aracil Gracia v Catalunya Banc SA (C-569/14), Nuria Robirosa Carrera, César Romera Navales v Banco Popular Español SA (C-570/14)

(Joined Cases C-568/14 to C-570/14) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 93/13/EEC - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Contracts concluded between sellers or suppliers and consumers - Mortgage contracts - ‘Floor’ clause - Collective proceedings - Individual action with the same subject matter - Interim relief))

(2017/C 063/06)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Mercantil No 3 de Barcelona

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Ismael Fernández Oliva (C-568/14), Jordi Carné Hidalgo, Anna Aracil Gracia (C-569/14), Nuria Robirosa Carrera, César Romera Navales (C-570/14)

Applicants:

Defendants: Caixabank SA (C-568/14), Catalunya Banc SA (C-569/14), Banco Popular Español SA (C-570/14)

Defendants:

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

Article 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as precluding a provision of national law, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which does not permit a court seised of an individual action brought by a consumer seeking a declaration that a term of a contract binding him to a seller or supplier is unfair to adopt interim relief of its own motion, for as long as it considers appropriate, pending a final judgment in an ongoing collective action, the outcome of which may be applied to the individual action, when such relief is necessary in order to ensure the full effectiveness of the judgment to be given on the existence of the rights claimed by the consumer under Directive 93/13.

---

(1)  OJ C 46, 9.2.2015.

1

---
No. 10-10933.

#### Catherine L. Marston, Petitioner v. Brad Livingston, Executive Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, et al.

565 U.S. 858, 132 S. Ct. 192,

181 L. Ed. 2d 99,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 6027.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 416 Fed. Appx. 376.
Page 5( a )
**Attachment**

**Action Item Tracker – Supply PRC 23-03 Meeting (September 27, 2023)**

**Current as of October 17, 2023**

Supply PRC 23-03 Minutes: https://www.dla.mil/SupplyPRC
Exhibit 31.2 Certification of Chief
Financial Officer                              Securities Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and
15d-14                    As Adopted Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002 Annette G. Mariano, Chief Financial
Officer of Metwood, Inc., certifies that: 1.
I
have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Metwood, Inc.;  2.
Based
on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of a material
fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of
the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to
the period  covered by this annual report;  3.
Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements and other financial information included in
this annual report fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of and for the periods
presented in this annual report;  4.
The
registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14
and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:  a)
designed
such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information relating to
the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiary, is made known to us by others
within those entities, particularly during the period in which this annual report is
being prepared;  b)
evaluated
the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures as of a date
within ninety days prior to the filing date of this annual report (the Evaluation
Date); and  c)
presented
in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls
and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;  34     5.
The
registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants
board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):  a)
all
significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could
adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report
financial data and have identified for the registrants auditors any material weaknesses
in internal controls; and  b)
any
fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a
significant role in the registrants internal controls; and  6.
The
registrants other certifying officer and I have indicated in this annual report whether
there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could
significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent
evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and
material weaknesses.  Date: September 8, 2004

/s/ Annette G. Mariano
Annette G. MarianoChief Financial Officer  35
No. 10-10875.

#### Shirley Williams, Petitioner v. Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of Social Security.

565 U.S. 932, 132 S. Ct. 374,

181 L. Ed. 2d 237,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 6523,

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.

Justice Sotomayor took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.

Same case below, 416 Fed. Appx. 120.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

No. 09-3128

CARLEN URIEL HIGGS,

 Petitioner

v.

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES,

 Respondent 

(Agency No. A046-018-938)

Present: FUENTES, FISHER and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges

Motion by Petitioner To Amend the Opinion Issued on 08/25/2011. 

Respectfully,

Clerk/pdb

_________________________________ORDER________________________________

The foregoing motion is granted. The opinion shall be amended so that Ryan Christian is 

omitted from the listing of petitioner’s counsel. Petitioner’s counsel shall be listed as 

follows:

Thomas S. Jones, Esq.

Alison M. Kilmartin, Esq. 

Jones Day 500 Grant Street, Suite 4500 

Pittsburgh, PA 15219

Counsel for Petitioner

By the Court,

/s/ Julio M. Fuentes

Circuit Judge

Dated: September 19, 2011

PDB/cc: All Counsel of Record
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
unaudited financial statements of Mount Vintage Plantation Golf Club, LLC for
the quarter ended September 30, 1998, contained in the Quarterly Report on Form
10-QSB of Mount Vintage Plantation Golf Club, LLC and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 NOV-09-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                              20,000
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                            0
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    20,000
<PP&E>                                                   0
<DEPRECIATION>                                           0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      20,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                    0
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                            20,000
<OTHER-SE>                                               0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        20,000
<SALES>                                                  0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                         0
<CGS>                                                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                            0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                          0
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                      0
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                             0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                            0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            0
                                                    

</TABLE>
Legacy DLMS Status Report for 2017

As of October 20, 2017

##### 	ADMINISTRATION OF THE DLMS AND DLSS STATUS REVIEW	

##### PART I -- PROPOSED CHANGES

19

93

##### ADMINISTRATION OF THE DEFENSE LOGISTICS MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

###### DLMS STATUS REVIEW

##### PART II -- APPROVED CHANGES

##### PART III – INACTIVE/HOLD/WITHDRAWN CHANGES

19

101
No. 11-5745.

#### Surinder Multani, aka Sam Multani, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 920, 132 S. Ct. 345,

181 L. Ed. 2d 217,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 6924.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.

Same case below, 420 Fed. Appx. 621.
#### *State, Respondent, v. Dunn, Petitioner,*

No. 91807-4.

Petition for review of a decision of the Court of Appeals, No. 44572-7-II, May 12, 2015, 187 Wn. App. 1026. *Denied*November 4, 2015.
**DoD 4000.25-1-M**

*DoD 4000.25-1-M, January, 2006*

*Change 1*

*DLM 4000.25, Volume 2, November 26, 2019*

*Change 13*

**AP8.9. APPENDIX 8.9**

**SOURCE OF SUPPLY CANCELLATION(DIRECT DELIVERY FROM PROCUREMENT)**

2

APPENDIX 3.9

AP8.9-1

APPENDIX 8.9
-81 -80 -79 -78 -77 -76 -75

 38

 39

 40

 41

★

▲

▲

▲ ▲

★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲

 500

 1000

 1500

 100

18 12 06 00

08/04

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 04 Aug 07

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 38.86 N 77.06 W Meters AGL
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 16-10453

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 8:15-cr-00362-JDW-AEP-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MIGUEL RAYO-CAMACHO, 

SPANISH INTERPRETER REQUIRED, 

a.k.a. Miguel Rayo, 

a.k.a. Alejandro Gonzalez-Valdez, 

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

________________________

(September 28, 2016)

Case: 16-10453 Date Filed: 09/28/2016 Page: 1 of 2 
2

Before TJOFLAT, HULL and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Aliza Hochman Bloom, appointed counsel for Miguel Rayo-Camacho in this 

direct criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the 

appellant and filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 

1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record 

reveals that counsel=s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. 

Because independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of 

merit, counsel=s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Rayo-Camacho’s

conviction and sentence is AFFIRMED.

Case: 16-10453 Date Filed: 09/28/2016 Page: 2 of 2
No. 10-10715.

#### Cortez Shields, Petitioner v. Illinois.

565 U.S. 845, 132 S. Ct. 163,

181 L. Ed. 2d 77,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 6277.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, denied.

Same case below, 404 Ill. App. 3d 1171, 374 Ill. Dec. 1078, 996 N.E.2d 773.
No. 10-10659.

#### Detelin Draganov, Petitioner v. Washington.

565 U.S. 843, 132 S. Ct. 156,

181 L. Ed. 2d 72,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 5993,

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
No. 10-10749.

#### Anthony James Greene, Petitioner v. Washington.

565 U.S. 847, 132 S. Ct. 167,

181 L. Ed. 2d 80,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 6307.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 2, denied.

Same case below, 157 Wash. App. 1053.
No. 11-5954.

#### Cheryl J. Latos, Petitioner v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue.

565 U.S. 812, 132 S. Ct. 90,

181 L. Ed. 2d 20,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 6930.

October 3, 2011.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis

*21denied. Petitioner is allowed until October 24, 2011, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) and to submit a petition in compliance with Rule 33.1 of the Rules of this Court.
# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 15-0544V Filed: January 21, 2016
UNPUBLISHED

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * DIANE M. SPHAR, *

* Petitioner, * Ruling on Entitlement; Concession; * Influenza (“Flu”) Vaccine; Radial Nerve * Injury; Special Processing Unit (“SPU”)

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * AND HUMAN SERVICES, *

* Respondent. *

*

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Wesly Matthew Nakajima, OConnor Acci ani and Levy, LPA, Cincinnati, OH, for petitioner. Linda Sara Renzi, U.S. Department of Ju stice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT 1

Dorsey , Chief Special Master:

On May 28, 2015, Diane Sphar filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensat ion Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.

, 2 [the “Vaccine Act”]. Petitioner alleges that she su ffered a radial nerve injury in her right arm as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine s he received on November 18, 2013. Petition at 2. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special
Masters.

On January 21, 2016, respondent filed her Rule 4(c) report in which she concedes that petitioner is entitled to compen sation in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report at 1. Specifically, respondent states that based on the current record, petitioner has satisfied all legal prerequi sites for compensation under the Act. Id. at 4.

1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reaso ned explanation for the action in this case, the undersigned intends to post it on the United States Cour t of Federal Claims' website, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-3 47, § 205, 116 Stat. 2899, 2913 (codified as amended at 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2006)). In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact medical or other inform ation, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, t he undersigned agrees that the identified material fits within this definition, the undersigned will redact such material from public access.

2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for ease of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Ac t will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa (2012).2 In view of respondent’s concession and the evidence before me, the undersigned finds that petitioner is entitled to compensation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Nora Beth Dorsey Nora Beth Dorsey Chief Special Master
WINNING BIDDER ANNOUNCEMENT

DATE: 2/12/2016 PAGE: 001

IFB NUMBER: 39-6702

IFB ITEM SALE: QATAR METALLIC & NON-METALLIC SCRAP

SCO: WILLIE N. PAYNE

 

BID OPENING DATE: 1/04/2016

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

BIDDER NAME

------------------------------------------------------------------------ ITEM

NO

U/I ITEM NAME UNIT BID

PRICES

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

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

ASAHI GEN TRAD & CONT. CO.

0001 LB SCRAP TIRES WITH DEMILITARIZATION 

AND/OR MUTILATION PERFORMED BY THE 

PURCHASER.

$0.750

0002 LB SCRAP PLASTICS & RUBBER RESIDUE WITH 

DEMILITARIZATION AND/OR MUTILATION 

PERFORMED BY THE PURCHASER.

$1.650

0003 LB SCRAP ELECTRONICS WITH 

DEMILITARIZATION AND/OR MUTILATION 

PERFORMED BY THE PURCHASER.

$1.920

0004 LB SCRAP METALS WITH DEMILITARIZATION 

AND/OR MUTILATION PERFORMED BY THE 

PURCHASER.

$0.011

0005 LB SCRAP VEHICLES & VEHICULAR RELATED 

COMPONENTS WITH DEMILITARIZATION 

AND/OR MUTILATION PERFORMED BY THE 

PURCHASER.

$0.010

0006 LB METALLIC & NON-METALLIC SCRAP NON- VEHICULAR RELATED WITH 

DEMILITARIZATION AND/OR MUTILATION 

PERFORMED BY THE USG.

$0.012

CUMULATIVE AVERAGE: $10.90

 
WINNING BIDDER ANNOUNCEMENT

DATE: 2/12/2016 PAGE: 002

IFB NUMBER: 39-6702

IFB ITEM SALE: QATAR METALLIC & NON-METALLIC SCRAP

SCO: WILLIE N. PAYNE

 

BID OPENING DATE: 1/04/2016

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

BIDDER NAME

------------------------------------------------------------------------ ITEM

NO

U/I ITEM NAME UNIT BID

PRICES

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

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

MADINAT AL-MEEZAN CO.

0001 LB SCRAP TIRES WITH DEMILITARIZATION 

AND/OR MUTILATION PERFORMED BY THE 

PURCHASER.

$0.400

0002 LB SCRAP PLASTICS & RUBBER RESIDUE WITH 

DEMILITARIZATION AND/OR MUTILATION 

PERFORMED BY THE PURCHASER.

$1.000

0003 LB SCRAP ELECTRONICS WITH 

DEMILITARIZATION AND/OR MUTILATION 

PERFORMED BY THE PURCHASER.

$2.500

0004 LB SCRAP METALS WITH DEMILITARIZATION 

AND/OR MUTILATION PERFORMED BY THE 

PURCHASER.

$0.010

0005 LB SCRAP VEHICLES & VEHICULAR RELATED 

COMPONENTS WITH DEMILITARIZATION 

AND/OR MUTILATION PERFORMED BY THE 

PURCHASER.

$0.009

0006 LB METALLIC & NON-METALLIC SCRAP NON- VEHICULAR RELATED WITH 

DEMILITARIZATION AND/OR MUTILATION 

PERFORMED BY THE USG.

$0.010

CUMULATIVE AVERAGE: $9.84
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 3 (Tuesday, January 6, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 478]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-195]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Project No. 2100-083]


California Department of Water Resources; Notice of Availability 
of Environmental Assessment

December 30, 1997.
    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 
and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission's) 
Regulations, 18 CFR Part 380 (Order 486, 52 F.R. 47897), the 
Commission's Office of Hydropower Licensing has reviewed an application 
for a temporary modification in the minimum flow requirement at the 
Themalito Afterbay Outlet (Outlet) of the Feather River Hydroelectric 
Project, Project No. 2100-083. The project is located on the Feather 
River, Butte County, California. Based on an agreement with state and 
federal resource agencies, the licensee wishes to temporarily reduce 
flows at the Outlet to 1,500 cfs for a maximum of 75 days, from January 
1 through March 15, 1998, to help recover water supply lost due to 
actions taken in spring 1997 to help fish. The agreement also calls for 
the licensee to increase flows to the low flow channel of the Feather 
River from 600 to 900 cfs from October 15, 1997 through February 28, 
1998. An Environmental Assessment (EA) was prepared for the 
application. The EA finds that approving the application would not 
constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality 
of the human environment.
    Copies of the EA are available for review in the Public Reference 
Branch, Room 2-A, of the Commission's offices at 888 First Street, 
N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-195 Filed 1-5-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON, D.C.

Hiroaki Nishio COMPLAINANT



### v. Commonwealth Ports Authority RESPONDENT. Docket No. 16-13

- 03

NOTICE OF EXTENSION OF TIME

This matter is before the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) based on the above-referenced complaint, filed in accordance with FAA Rules of Practice for Federally-AssistedAirport Enforcement Proceedings, 14 CFR Part 16 (Rules ofPractice). Pursuant to the Rules of Practice, § 1 6.ll(a), the date by which the Director, FAA Office ofAirport Compliance and Management Analysis will issue 

### a Director's Detennination 

### in this matter is hereby extended to on or before December 

### 28,20 1 5.

Randall S. Fiertz Director, Office ofAirport Compliance and Management Analysis 

# Se,ef~ **~lr** Date '

### CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on September ...%2_, 2015, I placed in the United States mail (first class, postage paid), a true copy ofthe Notice ofExtension ofTime addressed to:
Hiroaki Nishio P.O. Box 5910 CHRB Saipan, MP 96950 Complainant 

### Maryann Q. 

### Lizama Acting Executive Director Commonwealth Ports Authority Saipan International Airport 

### P.O. Box 501055 Saipan, MP 96950-1055 Respondent
Robert Tenorio Torres Attorney at Law P.O. Box 503758 CK Saipan, MP 96950
Counsel to the Respondent Copy to: FAA Part 16 Airport Proceedings Docket Office of Airport Compliance and Management Analysis, AC0-1 00



# -= Claudia Roberts Office ofAirport Compliance and Management Analysis