unius est exclusio alterius, 'expressing one item of [an] associated group or series excludes another left unmentioned' the Court is not persuaded. Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Echazabal, 536 U.S. 73, 80 (2002) (quoting United States v. Vonn, 535 U.S. 55, 65 (2002)). "The force of any negative implication ... depends on

unius est exclusio alterius, 'expressing one item of [an] associated group or series excludes another left unmentioned' the Court is not persuaded. Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Echazabal, 536 U.S. 73, 80 (2002) (quoting United States v. Vonn, 535 U.S. 55, 65 (2002)). "The force of any negative implication ... depends on

unius est exclusio alterius, 'expressing one item of [an] associated group or series excludes another left unmentioned' the Court is not persuaded. Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Echazabal, 536 U.S. 73, 80 (2002) (quoting United States v. Vonn, 535 U.S. 55, 65 (2002)). "The force of any negative implication ... depends on

unius est exclusio alterius, 'expressing one item of [an] associated group or series excludes another left unmentioned' the Court is not persuaded. Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Echazabal, 536 U.S. 73, 80 (2002) (quoting United States v. Vonn, 535 U.S. 55, 65 (2002)). "The force of any negative implication ... depends on

unius est exclusio alterius, 'expressing one item of [an] associated group or series excludes another left unmentioned' the Court is not persuaded. Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Echazabal, 536 U.S. 73, 80 (2002) (quoting United States v. Vonn, 535 U.S. 55, 65 (2002)). "The force of any negative implication ... depends on

unius est exclusio alterius, 'expressing one item of [an] associated group or series excludes another left unmentioned' the Court is not persuaded. Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Echazabal, 536 U.S. 73, 80 (2002) (quoting United States v. Vonn, 535 U.S. 55, 65 (2002)). "The force of any negative implication ... depends on

unius est exclusio alterius, 'expressing one item of [an] associated group or series excludes another left unmentioned' the Court is not persuaded. Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Echazabal, 536 U.S. 73, 80 (2002) (quoting United States v. Vonn, 535 U.S. 55, 65 (2002)). "The force of any negative implication ... depends on

73. U.S. Registration No. N401HB Ladies and Gentlemen: This letter of intent ("LO1") summarizes the current intent of Plan D. LLC ("Purchase?) and Chevron U.S.A. Inc., a Pennsylvania corporation ("Seller") to pursue discussions relating to the potential sale of the Aircraft (as described above) (the "Potential Tra

the obligations of Plan D, LLC ("Buyer) under the Aircraft Sale and Purchase Agreement (the "Agreement") dated February 24, 2017 between Buyer and Chevron U.S.A. Inc. ("Seller") for the sale of the Gulfstream GV-SP Aircraft (G550) (SN 5173) (the "Aircraft") from Seller to Buyer. Capitalized terms are defined in t

t have any further documentation that we can provide. If you have any questions let me know. Lee Lee Medlin Manager, Corporate Aviation Services Chevron U.S.A. Inc. Box 6565, Oakland, CA 94603 Tel CTN Fax EFTA00665071 please note The information contained in this communication is confidential, may be att

3. U.S. Registration No. N401HB Ladies and Gentlemen: This letter of intent ("LO1") summarizes the current intent of Plan D. LLC ("Purchaser") and Chevron U.S.A. Inc., a Pennsylvania corporation ("Seller") to pursue discussions relating to the potential sale of the Aircraft (as described above) (the "Potential Tra

on that we can provide. If you have any questions let me know. =u> Lee Lee Medlin Manager, Corporate Avia=ion Services [email protected] <mailto Chevron U.S.A. Inc. P.O. Box 6565, Oakland,=CA 94603 Tel <tel. <=u> CTN 564-0310<=u> Fax <tel:( . =blockquote type="cite"> =/div> 2 EFTA_R1_01899694 EFTA0265