alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Curtis Mack ALLEN, also known as Curtis Knight, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 03-30160.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Aug. 19, 2003.

Before JONES, WIENER, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.*

Curtis Mack Allen appeals the 24-month sentence imposed by the district court when it revoked his supervised release. He contends that the district court failed to consider the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Because Allen failed to raise this issue in the district court, review is for plain error only. *See United States v. Ayers,*946 F.2d 1127, 1131 (5th Cir. 1991).

The record in this case reflects that the district court implicitly considered the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Accordingly, the district court did not commit *394plain error. *See United, States v. Gonzalez,*250 F.3d 923, 929-930 (5th Cir.2001). Because Allen has identified no plain error, the sentence of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
[811 NYS2d 824]

#### In the Matter of Michael John Colitz, Jr., an Attorney, Respondent. Grievance Committee of the Seventh Judicial District, Petitioner.

Fourth Department,

November 10, 2005

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Daniel*A. *Drake, Principal Counsel, Seventh Judicial District Grievance Committee,*Rochester, for petitioner.

*Michael J Colitz, Jr.,*Dunedin, Florida, respondent pro se.

*213OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Respondent was admitted to the practice of law by this Court on April 5, 1967. By order entered January *20,*2005 (894 So 2d 972 [Fla 2005]) , respondent was suspended by the Supreme Court of Florida for a period of three years, effective June 6, 2003, for violating regulations of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). That office had suspended respondent on December 2, 2002, for a period of five years, with two years of the period to be stayed, for misconduct that included aiding nonpractitioners in the unauthorized practice of law. Thereafter, the Supreme Court of Ohio, pursuant to the reciprocal discipline provisions of its rules, imposed upon respondent a period of suspension to run concurrently with that imposed by the USPTO.

This Court, upon receipt of certified copies of the orders entered in Florida and Ohio, directed respondent, by order entered September 15, 2005, to show cause why reciprocal discipline should not be imposed pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1022.22. Respondent filed papers in response to the order, contending that the imposition of reciprocal discipline in the circumstances of this case would be unjust.

Pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1022.22, an attorney disciplined in another jurisdiction may be disciplined by this Court for the underlying misconduct unless we find that the procedure in the foreign jurisdiction deprived the attorney of due process of law, that there was insufficient proof that the attorney committed the misconduct or that the imposition of discipline would be unjust. Respondent does not contend that he was deprived of due process in the proceedings in Florida or Ohio, nor does he contend that there was insufficient proof before the USPTO that he committed the misconduct. We disagree with respondent that the imposition of a period of suspension by this Court would be unjust. Accordingly, after consideration of all of the factors in this matter, we conclude that respondent should be immediately suspended, without leave to apply for reinstatement until June 6, 2006, or, until such time as he has been reinstated by the USPTO, whichever is later.

Green, J.P., Scudder, Gorski, Pine and Hayes, JJ., concur.

Order of suspension entered.
#### Bela-Lisa FRIEDMAN, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. QUEST INTERNATIONAL FRAGRANCES COMPANY, a Corporation, Defendant—Appellee.

No. 02-55177, 02-55672.

D.C. No. CV-00-11025-AHM, CV-00-11025-AHM-02.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted March 3, 2003.

Decided March 13, 2003.

Before LAY,* HAWKINS, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.

*

 Honorable Donald P. Lay, Senior United States Circuit Judge for the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM **

It is settled law in this Circuit that circumstantial evidence is sufficient to withstand summary judgment, especially in cases where direct proof of wrongdoing is difficult to obtain. We have held that circumstantial evidence is sufficient to withstand summary judgment in cases involving securities fraud, *Gray v. First Winthrop Corp.,*82 F.3d 877, 884 (9th Cir.1996), sex and race discrimination, *Godwin v. Hunt Wesson, Inc.,*150 F.3d *3601217, 1222 (9th Cir.1998), copyright infringement, *Baxter v. MCA, Inc.,*812 F.2d 421, 423 (9th Cir.1987), RICO, *River City Markets, Inc. v. Fleming Foods West, Inc.,*960 F.2d 1458, 1463 (9th Cir.1992), antitrust, *T.W. Elec. Serv., Inc. v. Pac. Elec. Contractors Ass’n,*809 F.2d 626, 631 (9th Cir.1987), trademark infringement, *Interstellar Starship Serv., Ltd. v. Epix, Inc.,*184 F.3d 1107, 1111 (9th Cir.1999), First Amendment retaliation claims, *Ulrich v. City and County of San Francisco,*308 F.3d 968, 979 (9th Cir.2002), and, significantly, misappropriation of trade secrets. *Droeger v. Welsh Sporting Goods Corp.,*541 F.2d 790, 792 (9th Cir.1976).

Friedman offered direct proof that Quest had access to her venture proposals, Quest met with its customers, Avon and Estee Lauder, to discuss Friedman’s proposals and, according to accepted expert testimony, Quest’s customers employed “strikingly similar” ideas in their marketing of the Tommy Girl and Women of Earth fragrances. The only element for which Friedman does not have direct evidence is whether Quest turned her ideas over to its clients in violation of the nondisclosure agreement. However, a reasonable and rational jury could infer from the direct evidence that Quest disclosed the information to its clients. *See T.W.Elec.,*809 F.2d at 631. Furthermore, admissible expert testimony is generally sufficient to withstand summary judgment. *In re Worlds of Wonder Sec. Litig.,*35 F.3d 1407,1425 (9th Cir.1994).

We, therefore, reverse the district court’s order entering summary judgment in favor of Quest on all of Friedman’s claims and remand for further proceedings. On remand, the district court will need to address, *inter alia,*whether Friedman’s ideas qualify for trade secret protection. Quest’s acknowledgment in the nondisclosure agreement may have some bearing on this determination.

The order entering summary judgment is REVERSED and the case is REMANDED for further proceedings.

The order awarding Quest attorney’s fees is VACATED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 17

- 5206

_____________________________
W ILLIAM T HOMAS L ANDERS , Appellant,

v.

S TATE O F F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Alachua County

. William E. Davis , Judge

. March 25, 2019

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.
L EWIS , M AKAR , and M.K. T HOMAS , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Andy Thomas , Public Defender, and Laurel Cornell Niles
, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Ashley B

. Moody , Attorney General, and Amanda D. Stokes
, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

HOP KEE PYROTECHNICS, Ltd .,

Plaintiff,

v. 1 CV-1:06-cv-0393-JD

PYRAMID FIREWORKS, INC .

And GARRY DEBLASIS, Individually,

Defendants.

ORDER TO APPEAR

Come now Plaintiff, Hop Kee Pyrotechnics, Ltd ., by counsel, and files its Motion for

Periodic Payment on Judgment . The Court having examined said Motion, now finds that

Defendants Pyramid Fireworks, Inc . and Garry DeBlasis should be ordered to appear and

answer as to their assets.

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Defendants Pyramid Fireworks, Inc . and Garry

DeBlasis, appear before this Court in person on the 29th day of October , 2007

at m. and answer as to their assets.

DATED this day of , 2007.

/s/ James R. Muirhea d

Magistrate Judge, District Court of New Hampshire

11:00 a. 1st October

Case 1:06-cv-00393-JD Document 30 Filed 10/01/07 Page 1 of 2
Distribution To:

Dennis Pizzimenti

Attorney at Law

6 Chapel Street

Concord, New Hampshire 0330 1

John H. Brooke

BROOKE MAWHORR, P. C.

P.O. Box 107 1

112 E. Gilbert St.

Muncie, IN 47305

Pyramid Fireworks, Inc.

124 Route 12 5

Kingston, New Hampshire 03848

Garry DeBlasis

124 Route 12 5

Kingston, New Hampshire 03848

Case 1:06-cv-00393-JD Document 30 Filed 10/01/07 Page 2 of 2
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-2493

EDWARD G. TINSLEY,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

TRW, INCORPORATED; EQUIFAX CREDIT INFORMATION

SERVICES, INCORPORATED,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CA96-273-PJM)

Submitted: December 19, 1996 Decided: December 31, 1996

Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit

Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Edward G. Tinsley, Appellant Pro Se. Sandy David Baron, GOLDSTEIN

& BARON, CHARTERED, College Park, Maryland; Thomas Moss Wood, IV,

Nathan Daniel Adler, NEUBERGER, QUINN, GIELEN, RUBIN & GIBBER,

P.A., Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order granting summary

judgment to the Defendants on his action filed under the Fair

Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C.A. § 1681 (West 1982 & Supp. 1996).

Our review of the record and the district court's opinion discloses

no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the

district court. Tinsley v. TRW, Inc., No. CA-96-273-PJM (D. Md.

Sept. 30, 1996). We dispense with oral argument because the facts

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Case 1:08-cv-00169-MML Document 18 Filed 04/24/09 Page 1 of 1
6

A.2. Average Size of Non-real-estate Bank Loans Made to FarmersThousands of dollars

Size of loan Si

Purpose of loan (thousands of dollars) 

Other Farm 

current machinery 3 10 25 100

All Feeder Other operating and to to to and Sm

Period loans livestock livestock expenses1 equipment Other2 9 24 99 over mid

1998...... 32.36 41.46 24.32 18.16 28.10 127.91 3.73 14.78 45.40 357.03 1999...... 30.92 35.63 26.42 21.43 31.82 101.12 3.82 14.83 46.80 322.06 2000...... 26.30 43.25 25.96 21.27 29.27 48.49 3.85 14.94 45.33 258.41 2001...... 29.40 39.71 29.75 20.03 31.76 62.16 3.87 14.76 45.45 269.62 2002...... 28.77 47.63 33.26 21.43 24.44 62.04 3.72 15.02 45.83 269.92 2003...... 30.74 67.77 36.98 21.44 33.40 64.60 3.75 14.81 47.26 276.39 2004...... 39.38 68.02 52.88 25.95 47.58 110.83 3.81 14.82 46.26 360.52 2005...... 40.42 69.13 47.05 26.41 63.49 99.94 3.83 14.62 47.14 333.02 2006...... 49.71 65.53 59.36 32.84 74.12 138.48 4.90 14.96 46.68 340.26 2007...... 48.27 64.93 50.33 36.27 47.41 117.22 5.35 15.11 46.62 302.38 2008...... 58.61 76.08 70.62 44.10 45.70 136.09 5.49 15.03 46.79 335.20 2009...... 55.71 68.17 58.34 46.97 47.09 107.13 5.37 14.90 47.16 358.13 2006: Q4... 53.61 80.54 57.82 33.44 71.05 155.58 5.56 14.96 48.79 341.00 2007: Q1... 58.33 76.05 54.29 50.88 32.69 120.07 5.34 15.10 47.15 296.76  Q2... 39.55 48.25 33.93 32.08 41.55 95.17 5.40 15.11 45.96 276.68  Q3... 42.93 42.18 63.99 28.28 62.22 108.75 5.26 15.19 45.88 296.12  Q4... 54.29 84.90 53.85 36.07 53.00 145.08 5.39 15.03 47.47 335.44 2008: Q1... 66.99 70.42 57.84 57.17 37.17 152.28 5.63 15.42 46.38 339.22  Q2... 53.03 64.25 58.32 39.04 59.60 127.92 5.40 14.76 46.37 310.75  Q3... 56.57 97.26 91.69 40.35 42.95 136.38 5.42 14.53 46.29 368.80  Q4... 58.67 82.63 77.87 41.38 39.40 131.00 5.55 15.40 47.93 328.69 2009: Q1... 73.87 67.25 59.90 72.04 50.22 112.97 5.38 14.98 48.10 384.54  Q2... 47.33 47.69 45.07 41.40 33.44 98.43 5.38 15.17 46.75 308.72  Q3... 44.03 66.51 85.58 32.07 41.81 93.60 5.31 14.78 46.66 318.34  Q4... 57.43 82.88 51.12 42.60 59.12 124.83 5.40 14.68 47.03 405.48 2010: Q1... 56.18 62.45 47.53 50.74 49.97 95.23 5.38 15.13 49.02 279.63  Q2... 51.17 53.19 37.72 38.57 56.00 132.33 5.52 15.08 47.60 325.11  Note. Data are estimates from the Federal Reserve System’s Survey of the Terms of Bank Lending to Farmers. Quarterly estimates aannual rate and are based on loans made during the first full week of the second month of the quarter. 1. Loans used primarily to finance such items as current crop production expenses and the care and feeding of livestock (including p 2. Typically loans for which the lender does not know the purpose. 3. Portfolios with $25 million or less in farm loans. 4. Portfolios with more than $25 million in farm loans.
#### Xand Corporation, Appellant, v Reliable Systems Alternatives Corporation, Respondent.

[807 NYS2d 574]

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for fraud in the inducement, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Bellantoni, J.), entered March 24, 2005, as denied that branch of its motion which was for a protective order with respect to that portion of the defendant’s notice for discovery and inspection which sought its customer list for the period between September 2, 2002, and September 2, 2003.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The plaintiffs contention that its customer list for the period between September 2, 2002, and September 2, 2003, is privileged matter as a trade secret, was raised for the first time on appeal, and is unpreserved for appellate review *(see Consolidated Payroll Servs., Inc. v Berk,*18 AD3d 415 [2005]; *Samide v Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn,*5 AD3d 463, 466 [2004]). In any event, the plaintiff failed to make the initial showing neces*796sary to support its assertion that it would be required to reveal a trade secret *(see Linderman v Pennsylvania Bldg. Co.,*289 AD2d 77 [2001]; *Bristol, Litynski, Wojcik v Town of Queensbury,*166 AD2d 772 [1990]; *Curtis v Complete Foam Insulation Corp.,*116 AD2d 907 [1986]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was for a protective order with respect to that portion of the defendant’s notice for discovery and inspection which sought a list of the plaintiffs customers between September 2, 2002, and September 2, 2003. Adams, J.P., Ritter, Goldstein, Skelos and Dillon, JJ., concur.
AO 458 (Rev.10/95) (NH 1/07) Appearance

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

APPEARANCE

 Case Number:

To the Clerk of this court and all parties of record:

Enter my appearance as counsel in this case for

I certify that I am admitted to practice in this court.

_______________________

Date Signature

__________________________________________

Print Name Bar Number 

__________________________________________

Address

__________________________________________

City State Zip Code

__________________________________________

Phone Number Email Address

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that this Appearance was served on the following persons on this date and in the manner

specified herein:

Electronically Served Through ECF:

Conventionally Served:

_______________________

Date Signature

07-356 (SM)

Muriel Cyrus, et al. (Intervenors)

1/18/2008 [/s/] Bradford T. Atwood

Bradford T. Atwood 8512

10 Buck Road

Hanover NH 03755

(603) 643-2102 batwood@cas-law.net

Michael A. Newdow (newdowlaw@gmail.com); Rosanna T. Fox (rosief13@comcast.net); Eric B. Beckenhauer

(eric.beckenhauer@usdoj.gov); Theodore C. Hirt (theodore.hirt@usdoj.gov); Gretchen L. Witt (gretchen.witt@usdoj.gov); David

H. Bradley (dbradley@stebbinsbradley.com)

[Name and Address of Non-Filing Users]

1/18/2008 [/s/] Bradford T. Atwood

Case 1:07-cv-00356-SM Document 17 Filed 01/18/08 Page 1 of 1
B.2. Delinquent Non-real-estate Farm Loans Held by Insured Commercial Banks

Share of outstanding farm production

Estimated volume (billions of dollars) loans (percent)

Nonperforming Nonperforming 

Past due Past due

30 to 89 Past due 30 to 89 Past due

days, 90 days, Non- days, 90 days, NonPeriod Total accruing Total accruing accruing Total accuring Total accruing accruing

1998...... 1.0 .5 .5 .1 .4 2.2 1.0 1.2 .3 .9

1999...... .9 .3 .6 .1 .5 2.1 .8 1.3 .2 1.1

2000...... 1.0 .4 .6 .1 .5 2.1 .9 1.2 .2 1.0

2001...... 1.3 .5 .7 .1 .6 2.7 1.2 1.5 .2 1.3

2002...... 1.2 .5 .7 .1 .6 2.6 1.0 1.6 .3 1.3

2003...... 1.0 .4 .7 .1 .5 2.3 .8 1.5 .3 1.2

2004...... .8 .3 .5 .1 .4 1.6 .5 1.0 .2 .9

2005...... .6 .3 .3 .1 .3 1.3 .6 .7 .2 .5

2006...... .7 .4 .3 .1 .3 1.3 .7 .6 .1 .5

2007...... .7 .4 .4 .1 .3 1.3 .7 .6 .1 .5

2008...... .9 .5 .4 .1 .3 1.5 .8 .6 .1 .5

2002: Q2... 1.4 .5 .8 .2 .6 2.9 1.2 1.8 .5 1.3

 Q3... 1.3 .4 .8 .2 .6 2.7 .9 1.8 .4 1.4

 Q4... 1.2 .5 .7 .1 .6 2.6 1.0 1.6 .3 1.3

2003: Q1... 1.7 .9 .8 .2 .6 4.0 2.1 1.9 .4 1.5

 Q2... 1.4 .5 .9 .2 .7 3.1 1.1 2.0 .5 1.5

 Q3... 1.2 .4 .8 .2 .6 2.7 .9 1.8 .4 1.4

 Q4... 1.0 .4 .7 .1 .5 2.3 .8 1.5 .3 1.2

2004: Q1... 1.3 .6 .7 .2 .5 3.0 1.3 1.6 .4 1.2

 Q2... .9 .3 .6 .1 .5 2.1 .7 1.3 .3 1.0

 Q3... .8 .3 .5 .1 .4 1.7 .6 1.1 .2 .9

 Q4... .8 .3 .5 .1 .4 1.6 .5 1.0 .2 .9

2005: Q1... 1.0 .5 .5 .1 .4 2.3 1.2 1.1 .3 .9

 Q2... .8 .3 .5 .1 .4 1.6 .6 1.0 .3 .8

 Q3... .7 .3 .4 .1 .3 1.3 .5 .8 .2 .6

 Q4... .6 .3 .3 .1 .3 1.3 .6 .7 .2 .5

2006: Q1... .9 .5 .4 .1 .3 1.8 1.1 .8 .2 .5

 Q2... .7 .3 .4 .1 .2 1.3 .6 .7 .2 .5

 Q3... .6 .3 .4 .1 .3 1.2 .5 .7 .2 .5

 Q4... .7 .4 .3 .1 .3 1.3 .7 .6 .1 .5

2007: Q1... 1.0 .6 .4 .1 .3 1.9 1.1 .8 .3 .5

 Q2... .9 .4 .5 .1 .4 1.6 .7 .9 .2 .7

 Q3... .7 .3 .4 .1 .3 1.2 .5 .7 .2 .6

 Q4... .7 .4 .4 .1 .3 1.3 .7 .6 .1 .5

2008: Q1... .9 .5 .4 .1 .3 1.7 1.0 .7 .2 .5

 Q2... .8 .4 .4 .1 .3 1.4 .7 .7 .2 .5

 Q3... .8 .4 .4 .1 .3 1.3 .6 .7 .2 .5

 Q4... .9 .5 .4 .1 .3 1.5 .8 .6 .1 .5

2009: Q1... 1.4 .7 .6 .2 .5 2.5 1.4 1.2 .3 .9

 Q2... 1.4 .5 .8 .2 .7 2.4 .9 1.5 .3 1.2

 Q3... 1.4 .6 .8 .1 .7 2.4 1.0 1.4 .3 1.1

 Note. Data are estimates of the national totals for non-real-estate farm loans. Reported amounts are adjusted to exclude foreign

results for large banks that report farm delinquencies on a consolidated basis and for small banks that are allowed to report

delinquencies according to their internal definition of agricultural loans. Yearly data are as of December 31. Quarterly data

are as of end of quarter.

22
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Criminal No. 07-cr-238-01-JD

Timothy Demontier

O R D E R

The assented to motion to reschedule jury trial (document no.

15) filed by defendant is granted.

Defendant shall file a waiver of speedy trial rights within 10

days. The court finds that the ends of justice served by granting

a continuance outweigh the best interest of the public and the

defendant in a speedy trial, 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(B)(iv), for the

reasons set forth in the motion.

SO ORDERED.

/s/ Joseph A. DiClerico

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

Date: April 11, 2008

cc: Mark A. Irish , Esq.

Jessica C. Brown, Esq.

U.S. Marshal

U.S. Probation

Case 1:07-cr-00238-JD Document 16 Filed 04/11/08 Page 1 of 1
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Defense

###### Department of the Air Force 

# ACTION:

Notice.

Authority:Title 10, United States Code, Section 2869(d)(1). 

# SUMMARY:

This Notice identifies excess Federal property under the administrative jurisdiction of the United States Air Force that the Air Force intends to exchange for land beneficial to the Air Force. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

 Ms Diane Bailey, Air Force Real Property Agency (AFRPA), 143 Billy Mitchell Blvd., Suite 1, San Antonio, TX 78226-1816; telephone (210) 925-3076, (this telephone number is not toll-free). 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

In accordance with 10 U.S.C. Section 2869(d)(1), the Air Force is publishing this Notice to identify Federal real property that the Air Force intends to dispose of in exchange for land beneficial to the Air Force. 

*Description of the Air Force property:*                     Two non-contiguous sites to Dyess Air Force Base, TX (1) a transmitter site (20 acres) (2) middle marker site (0.13 acres).                 

*Property Number:*

*Status:*                     Excess.                 

*Comments:*                     Transmitter site and middle marker site are composed of approximately 20.13 acres which are no longer used to support Dyess Mission. The proposal is to exchange the 20.13 acres of government land at an estimated Fair Market Value or $40,260.00 for 16 acres of privately owned land to meet the current airfield criteria for Runway Lateral Clearance and Transitional Surface criteria along the bases.                 

*Privately owned land acquisition:*

Approximately 16 acres estimated Fair Market Value of $48,000 of privately owned land adjacent to the Northwest boundary of the base. 

Bao-Anh Trinh, 

Air Force Federal Register Liaison Officer.

[FR Doc. E8-22767 Filed 9-26-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001-05-P