alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
SERVED OCTOBER 18, 2011 

OEPART^iENT Of 

U.S. OEPARTMRNT OF TRANSPORTATION HANSPORIAIION 

. OFFICE OF HEARrNGS j'X\<B OFERATIOMS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

Zufi OCT n P |: 38' 

IN THE MATTER OF 

AIVIERICAN AIRLINES 

FAA DOCKET NO. CP10SW0006 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

DMS No. FAA-2010-0532 

HEARING NOTICE 

NO TICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that testimony and evidence will be heard and considered 

on January 4 and 5, 2012, in the National Transportation Safety Board Hearing, Room, 

624 Six Flags Drive, Suite 150, Arlington, Texas, 76011. Hearings will commence at 

9:00 a.m. and conclude at 4:30 p.m. each day. The parties should vacate the courthouse 

on or before 5:00 p.m. each day. 

Settled cases will not be removed from the docket until the Judge receives the proper 

pleading(s).' Pleadings may be tbrwarded by fax, express mail, courier or postal service. 

(Richard 

U.S. Administrative EawTudge 

Attachment - Service List 

' "The public policy of favoring and encouraging settlement makes necessary the inadmissibility of 

settlenieiil negolialions in order lo foster frank discussions". (Fiberglass Insulators, Inc v Dupuy, et al, 

(856 F. 2d 652, 26 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 1225, 1988. See also Coakley & Williams Construction, 

Incorporated v Structural Concrete Equipment, Incorporated, 973 F.2d 349. 1992; 2 McConiiick on Evid. 

§266 (6th cd.); Rule 68 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure). Rule 408 of the Federal Rules of 

Evidence "...prohibits the admission of slatementsmade in compromise negotiations..." (In the Matter of 

Africa Air Corporation, FAA Order No. 99-5). "Rule 408's public policy purpose of encouraging frank 

settlement discussions is as compelling in FAA civil penalty proceedings as it is in Federal Trials. Mencc. 

its guidance will be followed in these proceeds." (Id.) 
FAA Docket No. CPl()SW0006 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

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 2WJ000' 

ONE COPY 

Evan P. Singer, Respondent '.v Counsel 

JONES DAY 

2727 North Harwood Street 

Dallas, TX7520M515 

TEL: 214-969-5021 

FAX: 214-969-5100 

Francis C. Heil, Esq. 

American Airlines, inc. 

1101 17"'Street, N.W. 

Washington. DC 20036 

TEL: 202-496-5642 

FAX: 202-496-5100 

Y'olanda Ayala Bernal, Complainant's Counsel 

Attorney, Safety Enforcement Branch 

Southwest Region, ASW-7E3 

Federal Aviation Administration 

2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663 

Fort Worth, TX 76137 

TEL: 817-222-5070 

FAX: 817-222-5945 or 5092'--

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administralive Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

Washington, DC 20590 ^__ „ 

TEL: ^202-366-2139-Atto-mey-Advisor 

102-366-5121 Legal Assistant 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

' Sen'ice wasby U.S. Mail. For service in person or bv expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600'lndepcndence'Avenue,'S.W., Wilbur Wright Building—Suite 2W1000, Washington, 

DC 2U59I; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.
No. 11-6607.

#### Everly Hatfield, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 988, 132 S. Ct. 536,

181 L. Ed. 2d 376,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 7841.

October 31, 2011.

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

Same case below, 423 Fed. Appx. 648.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3365 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3365

 To amend title 40, United States Code, to prohibit the Commission of 
 Fine Arts from exercising authority over non-Federal property in the 
             District of Columbia, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 19, 2019

  Ms. Norton introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                   Committee on Oversight and Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 40, United States Code, to prohibit the Commission of 
 Fine Arts from exercising authority over non-Federal property in the 
             District of Columbia, and for other purposes.

    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 ``Commission of Fine Arts District of 
Columbia Home Rule Act''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITING COMMISSION OF FINE ARTS FROM EXERCISING AUTHORITY 
              OVER NON-FEDERAL PROPERTY IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.

    (a) Limiting Authority Over Location of Statues, Fountains, and 
Monuments.--Section 9102(a)(1) of title 40, United States Code, is 
amended by striking ``District of Columbia'' and inserting ``District 
of Columbia which are owned by the Federal Government''.
    (b) Clarification of Limitations on Authority.--Section 9102(c) of 
such title is amended to read as follows:
    ``(c) Nonapplication.--The authority of the Commission under this 
section does not apply to any of the following:
            ``(1) The United States Capitol.
            ``(2) Any building of the Library of Congress.
            ``(3) Any building, property, or project which is owned by 
        the District of Columbia.
            ``(4) Any private building, property, or project.''.
                                 <all>
```
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 145 (Wednesday, July 29, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40541-40542]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-20259]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE


Notice of Preliminary Approval of Settlement Agreement

    In accordance with 28 CFR 50.7(b), notice is hereby given that a 
proposed

[[Page 40542]]

Settlement Agreement in Sarah Yules v. United States of America, Civil 
Action No. 95-10256-WGY (D. Mass.), was preliminarily approved by the 
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on June 
19, 1998. Final approval of the proposed Settlement Agreement is 
subject to the requirements of 28 CFR 50.7.
    In this case, Plaintiffs Sarah Yules and Sandra Faxon, acting for 
themselves and on behalf of proposed class of persons in the Town of 
Mashpee, Massachusetts, whose drinking water supplies had been 
contaminated or threatened by pollutants allegedly emanating from the 
Massachusetts Military Reservation, Barnstable County, Massachusetts 
(``MMR''), filed suit in 1995 against, among others, the United States 
Department of Defense and the United States National Guard Bureau 
(``the federal defendants''). The suit asserted claims under the 
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, 
the Resource Recovery and Conservation Act, the Federal Clean Water 
Act, the Federal Tort Claims Act, and state law. Plaintiffs sought, 
among other things, an injunction requiring the federal defendants to 
abate any endangerment caused by the alleged discharge of pollutants 
from the MMR by connecting class members to the public water supply.
    The United States and Plaintiffs have now reached agreement on the 
terms of a settlement of the claims in this case. The Department of 
Justice will receive written comments on the proposed Settlement 
Agreement for a period of 30 days from the date of publication of this 
notice. Comments should be addressed to Joshua E. Swift, U.S. 
Department of Justice, Environment & Natural Resources Division, 
Environmental Defense Section, P.O. Box 23986, Washington, DC 20026, 
and refer to Sarah Yules v. United States of America, Civil Action No. 
95-10246-WGY (D. Mass.), DJ# 90-11-3-1506.
    The Settlement Agreement may be examined at the Clerk's Office, 
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, 90 
Devonshire Street, Room 607, Boston, Massachusetts (617-223-9152), or 
at the offices of Plaintiffs' counsel, Shapiro, Haber & Urmy, 75 State 
Street, Boston, Massachusetts (617-439-3939).
Letitia J. Grishaw,
Chief, Environmental Defense Section, Environmental & Natural Resources 
Division.
[FR Doc. 98-20259 Filed 7-28-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-15-M
No. 10-1416.

#### Mark Daniel Hartman, Petitioner v. Michigan.

565 U.S. 820, 132 S. Ct. 104,

181 L. Ed. 2d 31,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 6840.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Michigan denied.
116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3399 

AN ACT 

To amend the Nutria Eradication and Control Act of 2003 

to include California in the program, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 3399 EH

1 SECTION 1. NUTRIA ERADICATION. 

2 The Nutria Eradication and Control Act of 2003 

3 (Public Law 108–16) is amended— 

4 (1) in section 2— 

5 (A) in subsection (a)— 

6 (i) in paragraph (1), by striking 

7 ‘‘Wetlands and tidal marshes of the Chesa8 peake Bay and in Louisiana’’ and inserting 

9 ‘‘Wetlands, tidal marshes, and agricultural 

10 lands’’; 

11 (ii) in paragraph (2), by striking ‘‘in 

12 Maryland and Louisiana’’; and 

13 (iii) by amending paragraph (3) to 

14 read as follows: 

15 ‘‘(3) Traditional harvest methods to control or 

16 eradicate nutria have failed. Consequently, marsh 

17 loss, loss of public and private wetlands, and loss of 

18 agricultural lands are accelerating.’’; and 

19 (B) in subsection (b), by striking ‘‘the 

20 State of Maryland and the State of Louisiana’’ 

21 and inserting ‘‘any State that has demonstrated 

22 the need’’; and 

23 (2) in section 3— 

24 (A) by amending subsection (a) to read as 

25 follows: 
3 

•HR 3399 EH

1 ‘‘(a) GRANT AUTHORITY.—The Secretary of the Inte2 rior (referred to in this Act as the ‘Secretary’), may pro3 vide financial assistance to a State, in an amount that is 

4 in proportion to the total impacted area of such State af5 fected by nutria, that has demonstrated to the Secretary 

6 sufficient need for a program to implement measures to 

7 eradicate or control nutria and restore marshland, public 

8 and private wetlands, and agricultural lands damaged by 

9 nutria.’’; 

10 (B) by striking subsection (b); 

11 (C) in subsection (d)— 

12 (i) in paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘the 

13 program may’’ and inserting ‘‘a State pro14 gram referred to in subsection (a) may’’; 

15 and 

16 (ii) in paragraph (2), by striking ‘‘the 

17 program may’’ and inserting ‘‘a State pro18 gram referred to in subsection (a) may’’; 

19 (D) in subsection (e), by inserting ‘‘to a 

20 State’’ after ‘‘provided’’; 

21 (E) in subsection (f), by striking 

22 ‘‘$4,000,000’’ and all that follows and inserting 

23 ‘‘$12,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2021 

24 through 2025.’’; and 
4 

•HR 3399 EH

1 (F) by redesignating subsections (c) 

2 through (f) as subsections (b) through (e). 

Passed the House of Representatives February 26, 

2020. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3399 

AN ACT 

To amend the Nutria Eradication and Control Act 

for other purposes. of 2003 to include California in the program, and
Redirect

We no longer support this file. You may find similar content at the address below.

Please take a moment to update your bookmark:

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/covid19-vaccination-guidance.html
From: Bohnee, Gary [Gary.Bohnee@SRPMIC-nsn.gov]

Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2013 2:55 PM

To: McKaughan, Colleen

Cc: Martz, Verle; Webb, Thomas; Nudd, Gregory

Subject: RE: Consultation with Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community 

(SRPMIC)

Ms. McKaughan, 

Thank you for the email. I apologize for not responding sooner. I will check with staff to determine an 

optimal time to request a meeting with you and your staff.

Thanks, 

Gary Bohnee

From: McKaughan.Colleen@epamail.epa.gov [mailto:McKaughan.Colleen@epamail.epa.gov] 

Sent: Monday, February 11, 2013 2:36 PM

To: Bohnee, Gary

Cc: Martz, Verle; Webb.Thomas@epamail.epa.gov; Nudd.Gregory@epamail.epa.gov

Subject: Consultation with Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community (SRPMIC)

Dear Mr. Bohnee,

I believe I left you a voicemail on this topic several days ago. I wanted to follow up on the SRPMIC's 

request for consultation regarding EPA's proposed action on the Arizona Regional Haze SIP. We would 

be glad to meet with you and other representatives of the Tribe at your convenience.

We have extended the public comment period in response to several requests, including the Tribe's, and 

the public comment period now extends to March 6, 2013. We have provided Mr. Martz with the draft 

information prepared by our contractor. We are reviewing the contractor information internally but would 

be interested in any discrepancies noted by SRPMIC or Phoenix Cement.

Please let me know when you would like consultation to take place. Thank you very much.

Colleen W. McKaughan

Associate Director, Air Division

USEPA, Region 9

(520) 498-0118
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 18 (Wednesday, January 28, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 4226]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-1952]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary


List of Institutions of Higher Education Ineligible for Federal 
Funds

agency: Department of Defense.

action: Notice.

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

summary: This document is published to identify institutions of higher 
education that are ineligible for contracts and grants by reason of a 
determination by the Secretary of Defense that the institution prevents 
military recruiter access to the campus or students or maintains a 
policy against ROTC. It also implements the requirements set forth in 
the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1997 and 32 CFR Part 
216.
    Recently, American University reported modifications to policies of 
its Washington College of Law sufficient to merit removal of that 
college from the list of ineligible schools. Currently, no institution 
of higher education is ineligible for contracts of grants under the 
aforementioned law and policy.

addresses: Director for Accession Policy, Office of the Assistant 
Secretary of Defense for Force Management Policy, 4000 Defense 
Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-4000.

for further information contact: William J. Carr, (703) 697-8444.

supplementary information: On April 8, 1997 (62 FR 16691), the 
Department of Defense published 32 CFR part 216 as an interim rule. 
This rule requires that the Department of Defense semi-annually publish 
a list of the institutions of higher education ineligible for Federal 
funds due to a policy or practice that either prohibits, or in effect 
prevents, the Secretary of Defense from obtaining, for military 
recruiting purposes, entry to campuses, access to students on campuses, 
access to directory information on students or that has an anti-ROTC 
policy. On December 9, 1997 (62 FR 64813), the Department of Defense 
published a list of the institutions of higher education ineligible for 
Federal funding; this notice updates and supersedes that listing.

    Dated: January 22, 1998.
Patricia L. Toppings,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 98-1952 Filed 1-27-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5000-04-M
Master
Promissory Note


 


Date:
 May 1, 2013


 


FOR
VALUE RECEIVED, Rx
Safes, Inc, ("Borrower")
promises to pay to
the order of
Axius Consulting Group, Inc,
("Lender"), a New York
State Corporation, the principal
sum of Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000.00),
or so much thereof as may be disbursed to,
or for the benefit
of the Borrower by Lender in Lender's sole
and absolute discretion. It
is the intent of the
Borrower and Lender hereunder to create
a line of credit agreement between Borrower
and Lender whereby Borrower may borrow up to $50,000.00 from Lender;
provided, however, that Lender has no obligation
to lend Borrower any amounts hereunder
and the decision to lend such money
lies in the sole and
complete discretion of the Lender.


 


INTEREST
& PRINCIPAL: The
unpaid principal of
this line of
credit shall
bear simple
interest at the rate
of Four percent (4%)
per annum.  Interest
shall be calculated based on the principal
balance as may
be adjusted from time to time to
reflect additional advances made hereunder.
Interest on the unpaid balance of this
Note shall accrue monthly
but shall not be due and
payable until such time as when
the principal balance of this
Note becomes due
and payable. The principal balance
of this Note shall be due and payable on
December 31, 2014. There shall be no penalty
for early repayment of all
or any part
of the principal.


 


SECURITY:
This Note shall
be secured by
any assets of
the Borrower ("Assets")
namely inventory and parts
owned by the
Borrower located in
Clark County, NV.


 


DEFAULT:
The Borrower shall
be in default
of this Note
on the occurrence
of any of
the following events:


(i)
the Borrower shall
fail to
meet its obligation to
make the required
principal or interest
payments hereunder. (ii) the
Borrower shall be
dissolved or liquidated;
(iii) the
Borrower shall make
an assignment for the benefit of creditors or shall be unable to,
or shall admit in writing
their inability to pay their debts as they
become due; (iv) the
Borrower shall commence
any case, proceeding, or other
action under any existing or
future law of
any jurisdiction relating to bankruptcy, insolvency, reorganization
or relief of debtors,
or any such action shall be
commenced against the
undersigned; (v) the
Borrower shall suffer a receiver
to be appointed for
it or for any
of its property
or shall suffer
a garnishment, attachment, levy or execution.


 


REMEDIES:
Upon default of
this Note, Lender
may declare the
entire amount due
and owing hereunder to
be immediately due
and payable. Lender
may also use
all remedies in
law and in
equity to enforce and collect
the amount owed under this Note.


 


Borrower
hereby waives demand,
presentment, notice of
dishonor, diligence in
collecting, grace and notice
of protest.


 


	BORROWER:
	/s/ Lorraine Yarde
	 
	Lender:
	/s/ Authorized Signatory
	Axius Consulting Group, Inc.
January 14, 2014

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

ASHLEY MARTINS AND ALL OTHER OCCUPANTS, Appellant

NO. 14-13-00740-CV V.

FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION AKA FANNIE MAE, 

Appellee

________________________________

Today the Court heard its own motion to dismiss the appeal from the 

judgment signed by the court below on August 12, 2013. Having considered the 

motion and found it meritorious, we order the appeal DISMISSED.

We further order that all costs incurred by reason of this appeal be paid by 

appellant, Ashley Martins and All Other Occupants.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
No. 10-11089.

#### Troy Lee Moore, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 942, 132 S. Ct. 399,

181 L. Ed. 2d 256,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 7289.

October 11, 2011.

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

*257Same case below, 635 F.3d 774.
DLA FORM 1759, MAR 2008 PDF (DLA)

REIMBURSABLE PROCESSING OF MATERIEL

Work Order Number

PART I - MANAGEMENT DATA New Procurement

Redistribution

Shipment COSIS FMS

Customer Returns

Storage

Assembly/Disassembly

CHECK APPLICABLE BLOCK Contract Requisition Number Job Order No.

National Stock Number (NSN) Routing Identifier Code (RIC)

Part Number Nomenclature Unit of

Issue

Quantity

Unit Pack

Quantity Shipped/

Billed

Quantity

Received

Quantity to be

Processed

Unit Price Total Cost of Deficient Stock Condition Code Completion Date CAGE Priority Project Code

ACTION REQUIRED (CHECK APPLICALBE BLOCKS) PACKAGING/MARKING DATA

Marking Packing Packaging Preservation

Palletization Assembly/Disassembly Other (Describe)

Signature Date

(Org) Location

PART II - MATERIAL COST

DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT COST TOTAL COST LABOR HOURS/MANHOURS

EXPENDED

PART III - COST/BILLING DATA

COSTS

LABOR MATERIAL TOTAL COST

PART IV- REMARKS

Signature Date Completed
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

IN RE: REGINALD A. NOBLE,

 Relator.

'

'

'

'

'

'

No. 08-13-00174-CV

AN ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

IN MANDAMUS

J U D G M E N T

The court has considered this cause on the Relator=s petition for writ of mandamus 

against Bradley K. Lollar, Dallas County Public Defender of Dallas, Texas, and concludes that 

Relator=s petition for writ of mandamus should be denied. We therefore deny the petition for 

writ of mandamus, in accordance with the opinion of this court.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 24TH DAY OF JULY, 2013.

ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, Chief Justice 

Before McClure, C.J., Rivera, and Rodriguez, JJ.
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-14-00166-CV

Janinne Gilbert

v.

U.S. Bank National Association, as 

Trustee For Certificateholders of 

Bear Stearns Asset Backed 

Securities I LLC, Asset Backed 

Certificates, Series 2007-AC1 Its 

Successors and Assigns

§

§

§

§

From County Court at Law No. 2

of Denton County (CV-2011-01628)

July 17, 2014

Per Curiam

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that 

the appeal should be dismissed. It is ordered that the appeal is dismissed for 

want of jurisdiction.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

PER CURIAM
No. 11-5690.

#### Philian Eugene Lee, Petitioner v. California.

565 U.S. 919, 132 S. Ct. 340,

181 L. Ed. 2d 213,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 7104.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of California denied.

Same case below, 51 Cal. 4th 620, 122 Cal. Rptr. 3d 117, 248 P.3d 651.
Tolerance ID Descriptor L* a* b* c h dL* da* db* dEcmc*

URBAN TAN 478 STANDARD 57.14 4.86 11.93

1 3848D ORANGE LIMIT 0.08 0.68 0.68 0.89

2 3848E THIN YELLOW 

LIMIT 2.07 -0.15 0.42 1.03

3

3848I

(removed 1/24/20) GREEN LIMIT -0.76 0.03 -0.21 0.39

4 3848Q VIOLET LIMIT -0.52 0.34 -0.40 0.70

5 3848U GREEN LIMIT 1.40 -0.55 0.07 1.08

6 3848W THIN BLUE 

LIMIT 2.22 -0.39 -0.97 1.23

LIGHT TAN 479 STANDARD 64.18 3.92 10.24

7 3848J THIN GREEN 

LIMIT 2.32 -0.48 0.78 1.63

8 3848L FULL BLUE 

LIMIT -2.33 0.39 -0.65 1.43

9 3848N ORANGE LIMIT -0.20 0.25 0.38 0.40

10 3848O THIN BLUE 

LIMIT 1.07 -0.41 -1.55 1.38

11 3848S THIN GREEN 

LIMIT 3.08 -0.06 0.41 1.33

Equipment Type HUNTER ULTRA SCAN PRO Setting Mode: Specular Included - 

Reflectance

UV Filter – OUT UV Lamp OFF

Shade Number DESERT MARPAT Piece/Roll Number 3848

DLA/MARINE CORP SHADE TOLERANCE PROJECT September 4, 2022

Fabric Nomenclature UNIFORM, COMBAT UTILITY, DESERT MARPAT, 

PERMANENT PRESS PERMETHRIN TREATED MIL-PRF-MCCUU
12 3848T YELLOW LIMIT 0.87 -0.04 1.57 1.64

13 3848V THIN GREEN 

LIMIT 0.96 -0.42 -0.26 0.70

HIGHLAND 480 STANDARD 36.67 8.12 15.15

14 3848-G RED LIMIT -0.99 1.07 1.30 1.30

15 3848-K BLUE LIMIT -1.38 -0.38 -1.87 -1.67

LT COYOTE 481 STANDARD 47.11 6.68 16.67

16 3848A RED LIMIT -1.29 0.81 0.08 1.19

17 3848H YELLOW LIMIT 0.42 -0.47 1.33 1.48

18 3848R VIOLET LIMIT -0.22 0.84 -0.67 1.54

COMMENTS: NUMBERS ARE FOR REFERENCE ONLY
No. 11-89.

#### Luciane Vieira, Petitioner v. Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General.

565 U.S. 882, 132 S. Ct. 250,

181 L. Ed. 2d 144,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 5429.

October 3, 2011.

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