alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
W^s^^StSL^ J- D£>^t<A osT - i'So^- ei37 

e 

U.S Department of 

Transportation 

O/fice of fhe Secretary 

of Transportation 

a •• !t '•'•> Memoranduml 

Subject: Rate period for Wright Air Service at 

Lake Mmchumina, Alaska 

From: Dennls J. DeVany, Chief 

EAS and Domestic Analysis, X-53 

Date' A^g^st 3, 2010 

OAA Memo No.2010-85 

Kevin Adams, X-53 

Ext. 61047 

To: Gregory Frazier, S-3.6 

References: Orders 2008-9-21 and 2010-7-20 

Order 2008-9-21 selected Tatonduk to provide EAS at Lake Minchumina through 

October 31, 2010. By Order 2010-7-20 we selected Wright Air Service to replace 

Tatonduk at Lake Minchumina beginning October 1, 2010. The startup date for Wright 

Air Service in Order 2010-7-20 should be November 1, 2010, not October 1, 2010. 

Wright's contract will run for two years, through October 31, 2012. 

Also, Wright's IFR-equipped aircraft, Cessna Caravan and Piper Navajo, will both be 

assigned 9 seats for compensation purposes. 

cc: 

Bob Bursiel, Wright Air Service 

Robert Ragar, Tatonduk Outfitters 

Julie Collins, Lake Minchumina 

#
No. 09-10165.

#### In re Jermaine A. Young, Petitioner.

559 U.S. 1105, 130 S. Ct. 2419,

176 L. Ed. 2d 942,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 3723.

May 3, 2010.

Petition for writ of habeas corpus denied.
### UAS Pilot Log: Unmanned Aircraft Systems Logbook for Drone Pilots and Operators FLIGHT ID / NO.: FLIGHT LOCATION:
UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEM: MANUFACTURER: MODEL NUMBER: 

### PREFLIGHT CHECKLIST: • Batteries Charged & Secure • Aircraft Hardware OK ❑ Equipment 8 Gear OK ❑ Transmitter Controls OK 

### PREFLIGHT NOTES: Month _ Weather.


### CREW: PILOT: _ SPOTTER:

❑ Props OK & Tight ❑ Software / Frmware Update ❑ Transmitter Contrd Power ON ❑ Aircraft Power ON Day Year

❑ Compass Calibr•atfon ❑ Camera / FPV ON ❑ Satellite Connection ❑ Applications / Systems ON



# I SESSION FLIGHT

: 

### INTERVALS FLIGHT TIMES START STOP TOTAL i. 2. 3. 4. 5. 

### 6. 7. TOTAL HOURS FOR SESSION TOTALFORWARD 

# I TOTAL TO DATE 

### POSTFLIGHT NOTES / JOURNAL ENTRIES: FLIGHT MAP

I CERTIFY THAT THE FOREGOING ENTRIES ARE TRUE AND CORRECT: PILOT: SPOTTER: 

### 107 droneprep.com
No. 09-8976.

#### Elizabeth McCray, Petitioner v. Francis Howell School District, et al.

559 U.S. 1019, 130 S. Ct. 1914,

176 L. Ed. 2d 387,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 2495,

March 22, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
REGULATORY EVALUATION

Directorate Identifier: 2014-NM-045-AD

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific 

requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska, where aviation might be the only mode of 

transportation?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)
No. 09-9139.

#### Roy Dixon, Petitioner v. Palm Beach County Parks and Recreation Department.

559 U.S. 1076, 130 S. Ct. 2108,

176 L. Ed. 2d 737,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 3458.

April 19, 2010.

Petition for writ of cer-tiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.

Same case below, 343 Fed. Appx. 500.
<PAGE>   1
Exhibit 3.2.1




                                  Bylaws Section 2.5
                                  as amended in 1995


Section 2.5. Election and Term of Office. At each annual meeting of
shareholders, directors shall be elected to hold office until the next annual
meeting, provided that if for any reason said annual meeting or an adjournment
thereof is not held or the directors are not elected thereat, then the directors
may be elected at any special meeting of the shareholders called and held for
that purpose. The term of office of the directors shall begin immediately after
their election and shall continue until the expiration of the term for which
elected and until their respective successors have been elected and qualified.
No person may be elected or run for reelection to the Board of Directors after
having attained the age of 70 years.
Exhibit
      32.1




**CERTIFICATION
      OF ANNUAL REPORT**




Pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned officers of Alpha Nutra,
      Inc.(the “Company”), certifies that:




1.  The
      Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the Company for the year ended December 31,
      2005
      (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.







September
      20, 2006








By:
            /s/Mark
                L. Baum
              Mark
                L. Baum
              President
                and Chief Executive Officer





This
      certification is made solely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, subject
      to the knowledge standard contained therein, and not for any other
      purpose.
ex10-17.htm








Exhibit 10.17


 


SECOND AMENDMENT


OF


EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


 


WHEREAS, OTELCO INC. (the “Company”), as successor to Mid-Maine Communications, Inc., has previously entered into an Employment Agreement (the “Agreement”), dated as of July 3, 2006, with Nicholas A. Winchester (the “Employee”), as amended on December 31, 2008, setting forth the terms and conditions of the Employee’s employment with the Company; and


 


WHEREAS, the Company and the Employee desire to amend certain provisions of the Agreement.


 


NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree that the Agreement is hereby amended as follows:


 


Base Salary.  Effective January 1, 2011, Section 3(c)(i) of the Agreement is hereby amended and restated in its entirety as follows:


 


(i)           Base Salary.  During the Employment Period, the Employee shall receive an annual base salary of $200,000, subject to increase by the Board, which annual base salary shall be further subject to annual increase by an amount equal to at least the increase in the cost of living, if any, between the date of the immediately preceding increase and the date of each such adjustment, based upon the Consumer Price Index for Urban Consumers, or, if that index is discontinued, a similar index prepared by a department or agency of the United States government (as so increased and adjusted, the “Annual Base Salary”).  The Annual Base Salary shall be paid in accordance with the customary payroll practices of the Company, subject to withholding and other payroll taxes.


 


Bonus.  Effective January 1, 2011, Section 3(c)(ii) of the Agreement is hereby amended and restated in its entirety as follows:


 


(ii)           Bonus.  For each fiscal year during the Employment Period, the Employee will be entitled to receive a bonus (the “Bonus”).  The Bonus shall be based upon Otelco achieving operating and/or financial goals to be established by the Board or any duly appointed committee thereof in good faith, in its sole discretion.


 


SAVINGS CLAUSE.  Save and except as herein expressly amended, the Agreement shall continue in full force and effect.



	  	  	  
	
March 4, 2011

	
OTELCO INC.


	  	  	  
	  	
By:  

	
/s/ Curtis L. Garner, Jr.


	  	Name:     Curtis L. Garner, Jr.
	  	Title:       Chief Financial Officer
	  	  	  
	  	/s/ Nicholas A. Winchester
	  	Nicholas A. Winchester
Exhibit 31.3

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Amy E. Miles, Chief Financial Officer of Regal Entertainment Group, certify that:

1.     I
have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Regal Entertainment Group;

2.     Based
on my knowledge, this 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 report;

3.     Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this 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 report;

4.     The
registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:



5.     The
registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's
auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):



Date:
August 10, 2004

| |  | By: |  | /s/AMY E. MILESAmy E. Miles
Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
| |  | --- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---



QuickLinks
Exhibit 10.1





INDEPENDENT AUDITORS CONSENT





We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements No. 33-52722 and
No. 33-92818 of Tomkins plc on Form S-8 of our report dated October 25, 2002 (except with respect to the restatement discussed in Note 27 for which the date is November 6, 2002), relating to the consolidated financial statements of Tomkins plc,
appearing in the Annual Report on Form 20-F/A of Tomkins plc and its subsidiaries for the year ended April 30, 2002.





/s/ Deloitte & Touche


Deloitte & Touche


Chartered Accountants and Registered Auditors


London, England





Date: November 6, 2002
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT UNITED STATES OF AM ERIC A, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. JESUS LANDAVAZO-AGUNDEZ, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 12-10262

D.C . No. 4:11-c r-02214-JGZ M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ariz o na Linda R . R e a de , Distric t Judge , Pre siding ** Subm itte d

June 18, 2013 *** B e fore : TALLM AN, M . SM ITH, a nd HUR W ITZ, C irc uit Judge s. Je sus La nda va z o-Agunde z a

ppe a ls from

the distric t

c ourt’ s judgm e nt a

nd c ha lle nge s his guilty-ple a c onvic tion a

nd 60-m onth se nte nc e for posse ssion with



# FIL ED JUN 21 2013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.

** The Honora

ble Linda R . R e a de , C hie f Judge of the Unite d Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Northe rn Distric t of Iowa , sitting by de signa tion.

*** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).inte nt to distribute c oc a ine , in viola

tion of 21 U.S.C . § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A)(ii)(II). Pursuant to Ande rs v . C alifornia , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Landa va z o-Agunde z ’ s c ounse l ha s file d a brie f stating tha

t the re are no grounds for re lie f, a long with a

m otion to withdra

w a s c ounse l of re c ord. W e have provide d Landa va z o-Agunde z the opportunity to filea pro se supple m e nta l brie f. No pro se supple m e nta l brie f or answe ring brie f ha s be e n file d . Landa va z o-Agunde z ha s wa ive d his right to a ppe a l his c onvic tion a

nd se nte nc e . Our indepe nde nt re vie w of the re c ord pursua nt to Pe nson v . Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), disc l ose s no a rgua ble issue a s to theva lidity of the wa ive r. Se e Unite d State s v . W atson , 582 F.3d 974, 986-88 (9th C ir. 2009). W e a c c ordingly dism iss thea

ppe a l . Se eid. at 988. C ounse l’ s m otion to withdra w is G RANT E D. DISM I SSE D.

1 2 - 1 0 2 6 2 2
Exhibit 23

                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

The Board of Directors
Sparta Foods, Inc.



We  hereby  consent  to the  incorporation  by  reference  in  the  registration
statement  (No.  333-02465) on Form S-8 and in the  registration  statement (No.
333-04559)  on Form S-3 of Sparta Foods,  Inc. of our report dated  November 14,
1997, relating to the financial  statements of Sparta Foods, Inc. and Subsidiary
as of September  30, 1997 and 1996,  which report  appears in the  September 30,
1997, annual report on Form 10-KSB of Sparta Foods, Inc.


/s/  McGladrey & Pullen, LLP

Minneapolis, Minnesota
December 19, 1997
Print	

The ODNI seal incorporates the DNI's charge to oversee and coordinate the foreign and domestic activities of the United States Intelligence Community. The elements depicted in the ODNI seal symbolize:
      - American Bald Eagle: derived from the Great Seal of the United States, the eagle represents the sovereignty of the U.S.;
      - Escutcheon or shield: composed of 13 stripes, white signifying purity and innocence, and red signifying hardiness and valor;
      - "E Pluribus Unum": Latin for "out of many, one," signifies this new organization uniting the many organizations in the Intelligence Community;
      - Olive branch: represents the power of peace;
      - 13 arrows: represents the power of war;
      - Field of blue (background of the seal): signifying vigilance, perseverance and justice;
      - 50 white stars: represent the 50 states of the United States; and
      - Gold lettering: spelling out "Office of the Director of National Intelligence" and "United States of America" symbolize integrity and the highest ideals and goals.  

Usage of the ODNI seal, as well as the name and initials, is governed by the ODNI Instruction Number 2005-08; Official Use of the Name, Initials, or Seal of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. The instruction indicates that usage of the seal, name, or initials is authorized for individuals within the ODNI for official business and is governed by the deputy directors or heads of ODNI components. No person may knowingly use the official name, initials, or seal in connection with any commercial activity without authorization from the ODNI in writing.

### Download the ODNI Seal

      - .png  (540k)
##### 



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
  1)
    
    such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the three months
ended June 30, 2006, fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2)
    
    the information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the
Company for the three months ended June 30, 2006, fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Plumas Bancorp.
 Date: August 9, 2006
    
    /s/ Andrew Ryback

Andrew J. Ryback, Chief Financial Officer
# U n i ted S ta te s Cou r t o f Appe a l s F OR T HE D IS TRICT OF C OLUM BIA C IRCUI T

___ ___ ___ ___ 

## No. 23-5048 September Term, 2022 1: 22-cv -038 05-UNA Filed O n: August 14, 20 23 Raj K. Pat el, T he Excellent th e E xcellent , f rom all cap acities,

App ellant
v . United Sta tes, et a l.,

App ellees ON A PPE A L FROM THE UNITED STA TES DIS TRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BEFORE: Hend erson an d W alker, Circuit Ju dges, a nd Sen telle, Sen ior Circuit

Judge J U D G M E N T T his ap pea l was co nside red o n th e reco rd f rom the United Sta tes District Cou rt for th e District of

Colum bia a nd on the brief f iled b y ap pellan t. S ee Fed. R. Ap p. P

. 34(a )(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34 (j). It is ORDERED A ND A DJUDGED tha t th e d istrict court’s Fe brua ry 10 , 20 23 orde r dism issing appe llant’s co mp laint a nd civ il action w ith p rejudice be af f irmed . On ap pea l, app ellantprima rily

cha llenges a decision by the U.S. Co urt o f Fed eral Claim s, an d th e district cou rt’s conclu sion t hatit cou ld no t exercise jurisdiction to rev iew tha t de cision. T he district cou rt correctly conclud ed tha t it lacke d jurisdictio n to revi ew a decision by the U.S. Court o f

Fed eral Claim s. S ee Sm alls v. United S tate s, 47 1 F.3 d 1 86, 19 2 (D.C. Cir. 2006 ). In ad dition , th e d istrict court co rrectly con clude d th at a ppe llant’s claims against a fede ral judge were ba rred by judicial im mu nity. See Stu mp v. Spa rkman , 43 5 U.S . 34 9, 3 59 (197 8). T o th e e xten t ap pellan t raised inde pen den t claims against t he United Sta tes, Preside nt Jo seph R. Bid en, an d Rob ert Kie pura , an y such claims also a rose f rom the proce edin gs before t he U.S. Co urt o f Fed eral Claim s and ha ve n ot b een prese rved for ap pea l. Se e Cem entKiln Re cycling Coal. v. EPA, 25 5 F.3d 85 5, 8 69 (D.C. Cir. 2001 ) (“A litig antdo es n ot p rope rly raise a n issue by add ressing it in a cursory fa shion w ith o nly bare-bon es a rg um ent s.”) (q uot ation m arks om itted ). La stly , to the extent app ellantrequests a wr it of m and am us, h e h as n ot shown a “clea r and indisp uta ble right” to ma nda mu s relief . S ee Gulfstream Ae rospa ce Corp. v. Mayacama s Corp., 48 5 U.S . 27 1, 2 89 (198 8).

# U n i ted S ta te s Cou r t o f Appe a l s F OR T HE D IS TRICT OF C OLUM BIA C IRCUI T

___ ___ ___ ___ 

## No. 23-5048 September Term, 2022
Pursua nt t o D.C. Circuit Ru le 36 , th is dispo sition will no t be pu blished . T he Clerk is directe d to w ithho ld issua nce of the m and ate he rein u ntil seven d ays af ter reso lution of an y tim ely petition for rehe aring or pe tition for rehe aring en ban c. S ee Fed. R. Ap p. P. 4 1(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41

. Per Curiam
FOR THE COURT: Mark J. La nger, Clerk BY: /s/ Daniel J. Reidy Depu ty Cl erk

Page 2
BRUNSON v. N.C. DEPT. OF HUMAN RESOURCES, et al.

403P18-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 9, 2019

Daniel P. O'Brien, Special Deputy Attorney General, For N.C. Dept. of Human Resources

Jonathan E. Brunson, For Brunson, Jonathan E.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 21st of November 2018 by Plaintiff to Withdraw Petition for Discretionary Review:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 9th of May 2019."
STATE of North Carolina, v. Christopher Lee GOFORTH, Defendant.

No. COA18-851

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: July 2, 2019

AFFIRMED.
No. 09-8580.

#### Ben H. Kincaid, Petitioner v. Texas (three judgments).

559 U.S. 1012, 130 S. Ct. 1893,

176 L. Ed. 2d 375,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 2611.

March 22, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas denied.
STATE of North Carolina v. Charles Alan FANCHER, Defendant.

No. COA18-1115

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: August 6, 2019

NO PLAIN ERROR.
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-10-00123-CR

IN RE JOHN LAWRENCE MONK

Original Proceeding

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In this original proceeding, Relator John Lawrence Monk seeks mandamus relief 

against the respondent trial judge on the allegation that the trial court has failed to rule 

on Monk’s motion for DNA testing and his motion for appointment of counsel in that 

proceeding. Monk complains that he cannot appeal the trial judge’s ruling without a 

written order denying his motion.

Monk asserts that the motion for DNA testing was filed on April 30, 2009, but his 

record does not contain that motion. A certified copy of the motion for appointment of 

counsel shows that it was filed on May 4, 2009, so we assume that the motion for DNA 

testing was filed on or about that date as well. Monk’s record also includes a certified 

copy of the State’s proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law and proposed order 
In re Monk Page 2

denying DNA testing and appointment of counsel. Monk asserts that he received that 

document on May 28, 2009.

A trial judge has a reasonable time to perform the ministerial duty of considering 

and ruling on a motion properly filed and before the judge. In re Chavez, 62 S.W.3d 225, 

228 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2001, orig. proceeding); In re Martinez Ramirez, 994 S.W.2d 

682, 683-84 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1998, orig. proceeding). But that duty generally 

does not arise until the movant has brought the motion to the trial judge’s attention, 

and mandamus will not lie unless the movant makes such a showing and the trial judge 

then fails or refuses to rule within a reasonable time. See Chavez, 62 S.W.3d at 228.

Monk’s record contains certified copies of two letters, dated August 28, 2009 and 

September 9, 2009, respectively. Each letter is addressed to “Dear Sir/Madam,” and 

each requests that the matter be brought to the trial judge’s attention and that a written 

order be entered on Monk’s motion for DNA testing because he cannot appeal in the 

absence of an order. Because these letters do not disclose the addressee, we cannot say 

that the matter has been brought to the trial judge’s attention. Moreover, mere filing of 

a pleading or letter with the clerk does not impute knowledge to the trial court. See In re 

Flores, No. 04-03-00449-CV, 2003 WL 21480964 (Tex. App.—San Antonio June 25, 2003, 

orig. proceeding). The record thus does not show that Monk has brought the matter to 

the attention of the trial judge.

Because Monk has not shown he is entitled to relief on the record before us, we 

deny the petition for writ of mandamus.
In re Monk Page 3

REX D. DAVIS

Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Reyna, and

Justice Davis

Petition denied

Opinion delivered and filed May 19, 2010

Do not publish

[OT06]