alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
SERVED: May 3, 2017 

U.S. DEPARTMENTOF TRANSPORTAi§'~~THENT OF 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS TRANSPORTATION 

In The Matter Of: 

Peter Hantz Company 

Respondent 

WASHINGTON DC 

' lOll MAY -4 A 10: 23 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

DOCKET OPERATIONS 

Docket No. FAA-2016-4268 

Case No. 2012S0700041 

DISMISSAL ORDER 

On May 2, 2017, the Respondent filed its Withdrawal of Hearing Request, stating that the 

parties have executed a settlement agreement that resolves this matter. 

Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 13.215, a party may withdraw a request for a hearing without the 

consent of the administrative law judge at any time before or during a hearing. Upon such 

withdrawal, the administrative law judge shall dismiss the case with prejudice. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 

1. These proceedings are dismissed with prejudice. 

2. The hearing scheduled to begin on June 5, 2017 is cancelled. 

Attachment: Service List 

DOUGLAS M. RAW ALD 

Administrative Law Judge 
SERVICE LIST- BY U.S. MAIL 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W10001 

Brad L. Dunn, Respondent's Counsel 

HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP 

2375 East Camelback Road, Suite 750 

Phoenix, AZ 85016 

TEL: 602-337-5531 

F~: 602-631-4404 

ONE COPY 

Timothy I. McCulloch, Respondent's Counsel 

DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC 

1850 North Central Ave, Suite 1400 

Phoenix, AZ 85004 

TEL: 602-285-5036 

F~: 844-670-6009 

Ryan Landers, Complainant's Counsel 

Enforcement Division, Southern Team 

Federal Aviation Administration, Southern Region 

1701 Columbia A venue 

College Park, GA 30337 

TEL: 404-305-5200 

F ~: 404-305-5223 

The Honorable Douglas M. Rawald, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

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

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-5121 Staff Assistant 

F~: 202-366-7536 

Docket No. FAA-2016-4268 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

1 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.
No. 11-7060.

#### Jelani Solomon, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 1072, 132 S. Ct. 792,

181 L. Ed. 2d 506,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 8316.

November 28, 2011.

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

Same case below, 424 Fed. Appx. 81.
Figure 2. Scatterplot of state and area level coverage for 4:3:1:3*:3:1:4 vaccine series* using single†

- and dual§-frame designs, 

National Immunization Survey-Child, 2017

Note: r=0.99

* The 4:3:1:3*:3:1:4 vaccine series includes ≥4 doses of DTaP, ≥3 doses of poliovirus vaccine, ≥1 dose of measles-containing vaccine, the full series of Hib (≥3 or

≥4 doses, depending on product type), ≥3 doses of HepB, ≥1 dose of varicella vaccine, and ≥4 doses of PCV. †

Single-frame is defined as households with only cell phones

§

Dual-frame is defined as households with both landlines and cell phones.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 17-1737

___________

ANTHONY PARKER,

 Appellant

v.

LEHIGH COUNTY DOMESTIC 

RELATIONS COURT

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Civil Action No. 5-17-cv-00564)

District Judge: Honorable Mitchell S. Goldberg

____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

August 16, 2017

Before: SHWARTZ, COWEN and FUENTES, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: August 17, 2017)

___________

OPINION*

___________

PER CURIAM

In February 2017, Anthony Parker filed a civil rights complaint in the District 

Court against the Domestic Relations section of the Family Division of the Lehigh 

 

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not 

constitute binding precedent.
2

County Court of Common Pleas (“Family Court”). Parker claimed that the Family Court 

had violated his constitutional rights by dismissing his petition to modify his support 

order and seizing money from his bank account. Parker asked the District Court to order 

the Family Court to reopen the support proceedings so that he could lodge various 

objections. The District Court dismissed the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e) because, among other reasons, Parker’s claims were barred by the RookerFeldman doctrine. Parker appealed.1

We will affirm the District Court’s judgment. The District Court lacked 

jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine to review, either directly or indirectly, 

the Family Court case. See Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 

280, 284 (2005) (explaining that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars suits “brought by 

state-court losers complaining of injuries caused by state-court judgments rendered 

before the district court proceedings commenced and inviting district court review and 

rejection of those judgments”). 

 

1 We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We exercise plenary review over 

the District Court’s sua sponte dismissal under 28 U.S.C. 1915(e). See Allah v. 

Seiverling, 229 F.3d 220, 223 (3d Cir. 2000).
No. 11-7126.

#### McKindley Travis, Petitioner v. Harold W. Clarke, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections.

565 U.S. 1097, 132 S. Ct. 856,

181 L. Ed. 2d 558,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 9017.

December 12, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Virginia denied.
No. 10-1445.

#### Thomas C. Temperly, Petitioner v. Indiana.

565 U.S. 976, 132 S. Ct. 496,

181 L. Ed. 2d 345,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 7916.

October 31, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Indiana, Second District, denied.

Same case below, 933 N.E.2d 558.
Exhibit 35.1

SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Santander Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2017-2 for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, (the Report), the undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Santander Consumer USA Inc. (the Servicer), does hereby certify and
represent that:



| | 1. | A review of the activities and performance of the Servicer under the Sale and Servicing Agreement, dated as of
May 30, 2017, among Santander Drive Auto Receivables LLC, Santander Consumer USA Inc., Santander Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2017-2 and Wells Fargo Bank, National Association (the Agreement)
during the period that is the subject of the Report has been made under my supervision.
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the
Agreement in all material respects throughout the period that is the subject of the Report.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



SANTANDER CONSUMER USA INC.By:

/s/ Sandra M. BroderickName:

Sandra M. BroderickTitle:

EVP Head of OperationsDate:

March 29, 2019By:

/s/ Andrew KangName:

Andrew KangTitle:

TreasurerDate:

March 29, 2019
##### 



CERTIFICATE OF
PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
OF
AMERICAN CELLULAR CORPORATION
  a.
    
    fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and thatb.
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition of the
Company at March 31, 2006, and the results of the Companys operations for the three months ended March 31, 2006.
 May 10, 2006
    /s/ STEVEN P. DUSSEKSteven P. DussekChief Executive Officer
and principal executive officer
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3188 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3188

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the limitation on 
the carryover of excess corporate charitable contributions by regulated 
                           public utilities.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 10, 2019

  Mr. Thompson of California (for himself and Mr. Smith of Missouri) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                             Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the limitation on 
the carryover of excess corporate charitable contributions by regulated 
                           public utilities.

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF LIMITATION ON CARRYOVER OF EXCESS CHARITABLE 
              CONTRIBUTIONS BY REGULATED PUBLIC UTILITIES.

    (a) In General.--Section 170(d)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
                    ``(C) Special rule for regulated public 
                utilities.--In the case of a corporation that is a 
                regulated public utility (as defined in section 
                7701(a)(33)), or an affiliated group of which such a 
                regulated public utility is a part, subparagraph (A) 
                shall be applied by substituting `20 succeeding taxable 
                years' for `5 succeeding taxable years' and by 
                substituting `each of the second through twentieth' for 
                `the second, third, fourth, or fifth'.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to excess contributions which are deductible under section 
170(d)(2)(A) of such Code in succeeding taxable years beginning after 
December 31, 2019.
                                 <all>
```
If there were a vaccine against cancer, wouldn’t you get it for your kids?

HPV vaccine is cancer prevention. Talk to the doctor about vaccinating your 11–12 year 

sons and daughters against HPV.

www.cdc.gov/vaccines/teens

You are the Key to HPV Cancer Prevention

HPV vaccine is 

cancer prevention. 

Talk to the doctor 

about vaccinating 

your 11–12 year old

sons and daughters 

against HPV.

CS250577-H

If there were a 

vaccine against

cancer, wouldn’t

you get it for

your kids?

www.cdc.gov/vaccines/teens

June 2015
No. 11-5704.

#### Sean Paul Swain, Petitioner v. William Fullenkamp, et al.

565 U.S. 949, 132 S. Ct. 410,

181 L. Ed. 2d 268,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 7431.

October 11, 2011.

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