alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
((Business person who flies on Mokulele))
Mailing address: Mr. Kevin Schlemmer Director, Essential Air Service U. S. Department ofTransportation 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE Washington, DC, 20590 Email addresses: Kevin Schlemmer: kevin.schlemmer@dot.gov Scott Faulk: scott.faulk@dot.gov Kevin Adams: kevin.adams@dot.gov Subject line: Support for Mokulele's Kalaupapa EAS proposal

As a Molokai resident who travels on Mokulele Airlines for business, I am writing to voice my support for awarding the Kalaupapa essential air service contract to Mokulele. I have always found it to be very easy to make reservations for Mokulele flights, and their service coverage and reliability makes itvery convenient for me to make connecting flights to other islands. I have also been impressed with Mokulele's commitment to safety. I have heard that it is Mokulele's policy to staffeach flight with two pilots, even though this is not a requirement ofthe FAA. Iurge you to award the contractto Mokulele to give the residents ofKalaupapa and its visitors a safe, reliable and convenient means ofair travel.

## Sincerely,tJ~**~**

# t=>~T LyN-C..

# ~ .

# Vl£i'Be~r~tt**~ \2-St-JT~**
§ 1413.4 Closing of meetings; reasons therefor. ( a ) Except where the Board determines that the public interest requires otherwise, meetings, or portions thereof, shall not be open to public observation where the deliberations concern the issuance of a subpoena, the Board participation in a civil action or proceeding or an arbitration, or the initiation, conduct or disposition by the Board of particular cases of formal agency adjudication pursuant to the procedures in 5 U.S.C. 554 or otherwise involving a determination on the record after opportunity for a hearing, or any court proceedings collateral or ancillary thereto.
( b ) Meetings, or portions thereof, may also be closed by the Board, except where it determines that the public interest requires otherwise, when the deliberations concern matters or information falling within the reasons for closing meetings specified in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1) (secret matters concerning national defense or foreign policy); (c)(2) (internal personnel rules and practices); (c)(3) (matters specifically exempted from disclosure by statute); (c)(4) (privileged or confidential trade secrets and commercial or financial information); (c)(5) (matters of alleged criminal conduct or formal censure); (c)(6) (personal information where disclosure would cause a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy); (c)(7) (certain materials or information from investigatory files compiled for law enforcement purposes); or (c)(9)(B) (disclosure would significantly frustrate implementation of a proposed agency action).
#### In the Matter of Benjamin G. and Others, Infants. Orleans County Department of Social Services, Respondent; Bennie C., Appellant.

(Appeal No. 2.)

[715 NYS2d 359]

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Same Memorandum as in *Matter of Vanessa G.*(277 AD2d 950 [decided herewith]). (Appeal from Order of Orleans County Family Court, Punch, J. — Neglect.) Present — Green, J. P., Pine, Hayes, Scudder and Law-ton, JJ.
#### Brewer *v.*Ragan; and *vice versa.*

June 13, 1912.

Rehearing Denied July 11, 1912.

Claim. Before Judge Edwards. Haralson superior court. March 16, 1911.

*G. G. Janes*and *Bunn & Bunn,*for Brewer.

*William W. Mundy,*contra.

Hill, J.

1. While there are some inaccuracies in the charges complained of when considered separately, yet, taken as a whole in the light of the evidence in the ease, there should not be a reversal of the judgment of the court below refusing a new trial.

2. The newly discovered evidence was largely though not entirely cumulative, and, taken in connection with the affidavits in rebuttal thereto submitted by the defendant in error, was not of such a character as to make it an abuse of discretion on the part of the trial judge to refuse a new trial on that ground.

3. The judgment on the main bill of exceptions being affirmed, the cross-bill is dismissed.

*All the Justices concur.*
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4376 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to deny all deductions for 

business expenses associated with the use of a club that discriminates 

on the basis of sex, race, or color. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 17, 2012 

Mrs. MALONEY 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 deny all 

deductions for business expenses associated with the use 

of a club that discriminates on the basis of sex, race, 

or color. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Ending Tax Breaks 

5 for Discrimination Act of 2012’’. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4376 IH

1 SEC. 2. DENIAL OF DEDUCTION FOR BUSINESS EXPENSES 

2 FOR USE OF CLUB THAT DISCRIMINATES ON 

3 BASIS OF SEX, RACE, OR COLOR. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 162 of the Internal Rev5 enue Code of 1986 (relating to trade or business expenses) 

6 is amended by redesignating subsection (q) as subsection 

7 (r) and by inserting after subsection (p) the following new 

8 subsection: 

9 ‘‘(q) DENIAL OF DEDUCTION FOR USE OF CLUB

10 THAT DISCRIMINATES ON BASIS OF SEX, RACE, OR

11 COLOR; DENIAL OF DEDUCTION FOR CERTAIN ADVER12 TISING EXPENSES.— 

13 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—No deduction shall be al14 lowed under this section for any amount paid or in15 curred— 

16 ‘‘(A) to any private discriminatory club, 

17 ‘‘(B) for the use of services or facilities of 

18 any private discriminatory club, or 

19 ‘‘(C) for transportation, meals, lodging, 

20 and other traveling expenses (not described in 

21 subparagraph (A) or (B)) incurred in connec22 tion with such use. 

23 ‘‘(2) ADVERTISING EXPENSES.—No deduction 

24 shall be allowed under this section for any amount 

25 paid or incurred for— 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 4376 IH

1 ‘‘(A) advertising of any event held at any 

2 facility of a discriminatory club, or 

3 ‘‘(B) advertising for any product or service 

4 if the advertising occurs on any broadcast 

5 media during, or in association with, such me6 dia’s coverage of any such an event. 

7 ‘‘(3) PRIVATE DISCRIMINATORY CLUB.—For 

8 purposes of this subsection, the term ‘private dis9 criminatory club’ means any club organized for busi10 ness, pleasure, recreation, or other social purpose if 

11 such club restricts its membership or the use of its 

12 services or facilities on the basis of sex, race, or 

13 color. 

14 ‘‘(4) RECEIPTS TO STATE NONDEDUCTIBILITY

15 OF EXPENSES.—All receipts for any expense which 

16 is not allowed as a deduction under this section by 

17 reason of subsection (a) shall include the following 

18 statement: ‘The expenditures covered by this receipt 

19 are nondeductible for Federal income tax pur20 poses.’ ’’. 

21 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

22 this section shall apply to amounts paid or incurred after 

23 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5


<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                          16,617
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                26,617
<PP&E>                                         163,981
<DEPRECIATION>                                  17,320
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 257,107
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          495,119
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        200
<COMMON>                                       121,412
<OTHER-SE>                                    (359,624)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   257,107
<SALES>                                            410
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   410
<CGS>                                            2,941
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    2,941
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               522,935
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (23,318)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (496,444)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (560,760)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 64,316
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (496,444)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.05)



</TABLE>
### §300j–19d. Review of technologies

#### (a) Review

The Administrator, after consultation with appropriate departments and agencies of the Federal Government and with State and local governments, shall review (or enter into contracts or cooperative agreements to provide for a review of) existing and potential methods, means, equipment, and technologies (including review of cost, availability, and efficacy of such methods, means, equipment, and technologies) that—

(1) ensure the physical integrity of community water systems;

(2) prevent, detect, and respond to any contaminant for which a national primary drinking water regulation has been promulgated in community water systems and source water for community water systems;

(3) allow for use of alternate drinking water supplies from nontraditional sources; and

(4) facilitate source water assessment and protection.

#### (b) Inclusions

The review under subsection (a) shall include review of methods, means, equipment, and technologies—

(1) that are used for corrosion protection, metering, leak detection, or protection against water loss;

(2) that are intelligent systems, including hardware, software, or other technology, used to assist in protection and detection described in paragraph (1);

(3) that are point-of-use devices or point-of-entry devices;

(4) that are physical or electronic systems that monitor, or assist in monitoring, contaminants in drinking water in real-time; and

(5) that allow for the use of nontraditional sources for drinking water, including physical separation and chemical and biological transformation technologies.

#### (c) Availability

The Administrator shall make the results of the review under subsection (a) available to the public.

#### (d) Authorization of appropriations

There is authorized to be appropriated to the Administrator to carry out this section $10,000,000 for fiscal year 2019, which shall remain available until expended.

(July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title XIV, §1459D, as added Pub. L. 115–270, title II, §2017, Oct. 23, 2018, 132 Stat. 3856.)
#### Faber-Musser Company, appellant, v. William E. Dee Clay Manufacturing Company, appellee.

Action for damages for breach of contract to deliver fire brick. Judgment for defendant. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Sangamon county; the Hon. Frank W. Burton, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1921.

Reversed and remanded.

Opinion filed July 10, 1922.

Rehearing denied October 4, 1922.

B. D. Monroe and Arthur Keithley, for appellant. John M. Quin*619lan and Patton & Patton, for appellee; William L. Patton and Henry L. Patton, of counsel.

Mr. Justice Niehaus

delivered the opinion of the court.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-30733 Conference Calendar

JOHNNY NARCISSE, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus DONALD CREYDARE; LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF PAROLE; LOUISIANA BOARD OF PAROLE; RICHARD L. STALDER; JOHN P. WHITLEY, Defendants-Appellees.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana

USDC No. 00-CV-337

-------------------- October 17, 2000 Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Johnny Narcisse, Louisiana prisoner #101252, appeals from the dismissal of his prisoner civil-rights action as frivolous, for failure to state a claim, and for seeking monetary relief against defendants who are immune from suit. Narcisse moves for leave to file a supplemental brief; his motion is DENIED. Narcisse contends that the district court erred by dismissing his claim against the members of the Louisiana Board of Parole (“the Board”) on the basis of absolute immunity and that he statedNo. 00-30733 -2- facts against Parole Officer Donald Creydare sufficient to withstand a dismissal for failure to allege facts giving rise to a constitutional violation. Narcisse concedes that his claims were barred by Heck v. Humphrey , 512 U.S. 477 (1994), but he argues that his claims should have been dismissed without prejudice so that he could pursue further relief in state and federal court. Narcisse filed an amended complaint after the magistrate judge filed his report and recommendations. The amended complaint superseded Narcisse’s initial complaint and should have been considered by the district court. King v. Dogan , 31 F.3d 344, 346 (5th Cir. 1994). To the extent that Narcisse sought relief against the individual members of the Board (he did not explicitly do so), the allegations in the amended complaint made clear that the members of the Board had no knowledge that he had been arrested; any claims Narcisse may have wished to raise against them based on their own actions lacked any basis in fact. To the extent that Narcisse may have sought to hold the individual members of the Board vicariously liable for Creydare’s actions, his claim was legally frivolous. Baskin v. Parker , 602 F.2d 1205, 1207-08 (5th Cir. 1979). Creydare was absolutely immune from Narcisse’s damages action. Littles v. Board of Pardons and Paroles Div. , 68 F.3d 122, 123 (5th Cir. 1995). Narcisse’s amended complaint therefore was subject to dismissal as frivolous. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
AFFIRMED.
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN RE: 

CHARLES SCHWAB CORPORATION

SECURITIES LITIGATION.

This Document Relates

To All Cases. /

No. C 08-01510 WHA

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO EXCLUDE PART

OF PROFESSOR JAMES’

TESTIMONY

With respect to the motion to exclude the “negative causation” analysis of Professor

Christopher M. James, the motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to re-filing it for the final

pretrial conference. The Court will not allow any expert opinion that is based on a loss-causation

theory contrary to the order filed today on that issue. Please read the order and re-do the motion

in conformity therewith. Please do not waste time over mere arguments over the meaning of the

overall evidence where the jury could go either way. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 8, 2010. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:08-cv-01510-WHA Document 586 Filed 04/08/10 Page 1 of 1
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Josephine Scafuri, Appellant, v. Adorable Dance Frocks et al., Respondents. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent.

Motion to dismiss appeal for lack of prosecution denied, without costs, and without prejudice.
(April 20, 1962)

#### Tippetts-Abbett-McCarthy-Stratton, Respondent, v. New York State Thruway Authority, Appellant.

Appeal dismissed, without costs, unless appellant shall file and serve record, brief and note of issue on or before May 4, 1962 and be ready for argument during the May 1962 Term, in which event motion denied. Present — Bergan, P. J., Coon, Herlihy, Reynolds and Taylor, JJ.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Huq v. Sanyo et al

USDC No. C 08 02614 SC (ADR)

STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL 1

CHARLES GEERHART (SBN 139769)

PAOLI & GEERHART, LLP

785 Market Street Suite 1150 

San Francisco, CA 94103

(415) 498-2101

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

FARHANA HUQ; JOSETTE MOLLOY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FARHANA HUQ; JOSETTE MOLLOY;

CREATING ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITIES

FOR WOMEN, INC.

PLAINTIFFS,

VS.

SANYO NORTH AMERICA

CORPORATION; LENOVO (UNITED

STATES) INC.; INTERNATIONAL

BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION

DEFENDANTS.

Case No. C08 02614 SC (ADR)

STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL

[FRCP 41]

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties to this action through their

designated counsel that the above-captioned action be and hereby is dismissed with prejudice

pursuant to FRCP 41(a)(1). Each party is to bear his/her/its own costs and fees.

Date: January 26, 2010 PAOLI & GEERHART LLP

/s/__________________________

Charles Geerhart

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

FARHANA HUQ; JOSETTE MOLLOY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Samuel Conti

Case 3:08-cv-02614-SC Document 39 Filed 02/01/10 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Huq v. Sanyo et al

USDC No. C 08 02614 SC (ADR)

STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL 2

Date: January 26, 2010 WILSON ELSER ET AL

/s/__________________________

Mark Cokee

Attorneys for Defendants

SANYO NORTH AMERICA CORPORATION;

LENOVO (UNITED STATES) INC.;

INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES

CORPORATION

Case 3:08-cv-02614-SC Document 39 Filed 02/01/10 Page 2 of 2
Case 3:08-cv-03616-SI Document 58 Filed 07/06/10 Page 1 of 4
Case 3:08-cv-03616-SI Document 58 Filed 07/06/10 Page 2 of 4
Case 3:08-cv-03616-SI Document 58 Filed 07/06/10 Page 3 of 4
Case 3:08-cv-03616-SI Document 58 Filed 07/06/10 Page 4 of 4
### §280d–11. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, act July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title III, §399F, as added Pub. L. 102–531, title II, §201, Oct. 27, 1992, 106 Stat. 3474, which comprised part N in its entirety and which related to establishment and duties of National Foundation for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, was renumbered section 399G of act July 1, 1944, by Pub. L. 106–310, div. A, title V, §502(3), Oct. 17, 2000, 114 Stat. 1115, and transferred to section 280e–11 of this title.
###### Editorial Note on Part 201

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 201 appear at 62 FR 38027, July 16, 1997.

#### § 201.14 Eligibility of bid and performance bonds and guaranties.

The cost of any bid bond or guaranty posted by a successful bidder or of any performance bond or guaranty posted by a supplier is eligible for financing under the implementing document, provided that the bond or guaranty conforms to the requirements of the invitation for bids or the contract, as applicable, and to the extent that the principal amount of the bond or guaranty does not exceed the amount customary in international trade for the type of transaction and commodity involved. Bonds or guaranties may be payable in U.S. dollars, or a freely convertible currency or local currency, and shall be posted in favor of the purchaser. Nationality requirements for sureties, insurance companies or banks who issue bonds or guaranties under USAID-financed transactions are set forth in § 228.38(b) of this chapter.

[55 FR 34232, Aug. 22, 1990, as amended at 62 FR 38027, July 16, 1997]
No. 03

- 15

- 00180

- CV

IN THE THIRD COURT OF APPEALS OF TEXAS

Rebecca Mae Blount

Appellant

v.

Yellow Orchid, LLC

Appellees

Appeal from the County Court at Law 1 Travis County, Texas

Trial Court No. C

- 1

- CV

- 15

- 000923

APPELLANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS

David Rogers

Texas Bar No. 24014089

Law Office of David Rogers

1201 Spyglass Suite 100

Austin, TX 78746

Firm@DARogersLaw.com

Matthew Wilson

Texas Bar No. 24079588

Telephone: (512) 923

- 1836

Fax: (512) 201

- 4082

Fax: (512) 777

- 5988

A TTORNEYS FOR A PPELLANT ACCEPTED

03-15-00180-CV

4810931

THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

4/8/2015 2:48:40 PM

JEFFREY D. KYLE

CLERKNo. 03

- 15

- 00180

- CV

IN THE THIRD COURT OF APPEALS OF TEXAS

Rebecca Mae Blount

Appellant

v.

Yellow Orchid, LLC

Appellees

Appeal from the County Court at Law 1 Travis County, Texas

Trial Court No. C

- 1

- CV

- 15

- 000923

APPELLANT’S UNOPPOSED MOTION TO DISMISS

TO THE HONORABLE THIRD COURT OF APPEALS:

Comes now Appellant, Rebecca Mae Blount, and files her motion to dismiss

her appeal from Travis County Court at Law No. 1. The part ies have agreed

to a confidential settlement and release agreement that disposes of all claims

in this matter. As such, Appellant no longer wishes to pursue this appeal and

respectfully moves this court to dismiss her appeal and remove this case

from the c ourt’s docket.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,_/s/ David Rogers

__________ DAVID ROGERS

Texas Bar No. 24014089

L AW O FFICE OF D AVID R OGERS

1201 Spyglass

Suite #100

Austin, TX 78746

Telephone: (512) 923

- 1836

Facsimile: (512) 201

- 4082

Email: Firm@DARogers Law.com

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE

I hereby certify that on April 5, 2015 all parties finished executing a

settlement agreement, a condition of which is the filing of this motion. This

motion is therefore filed as unopposed.

_/s/ David Rogers

__________ DAVID ROGERS

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the forgoing mo tion was

served upon counsel of record for Appellee via t his court’s ECF system on

this 8 th d a y of April, 2015.

J. Hyde

State Bar No. 24027083

THE J. HYDE Law OFFICE, PLLC

Ill E. 17th Street#l2015

Austin, Texas 78711

Phone: (512) 200

- 4080

Fax: (512) 582

- 8295

E

- mail: jhyde@jhydelaw.com_/s/ David Rogers

__________ DAVID ROGERS
#### § 270.27i-1 Exemption from Section 27(i)(2)(A) of the Act during annuity payment period of variable annuity contracts participating in certain registered separate accounts.

A registered separate account, and any depositor of or underwriter for such account, shall, during the annuity payment period of variable annuity contracts participating in such account, be exempt from the requirement of paragraph (1) of section 27(i)(2)(A) of the Act that a periodic payment plan certificate be a redeemable security with respect to such contracts under which payments are being made based upon life contingencies.

[85 FR 26110, May 1, 2020, as amended at 88 FR 37987, June 12, 2023]
#### Mary R. Beyer v. Edward Keller et al.

Motion for leave to reargue denied, but motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals granted. Settle order on notice. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, Valente, McNally and Bastow, JJ.
#### Louis De Leo, Doing Business as Five O’Clock Club, Respondent, v. Eureka-Security Fire *&*Marine Insurance Company et al., Appellants.

— Order unanimously modified in accordance with the memorandum and as modified affirmed, without costs of this appeal to any party. Memorandum: The final clause of the second ordering paragraph reading as follows: “and, with respect to each such material matter, in what respects it will be claimed that plaintiff swore falsely,” should be stricken out. The plaintiff will have an adequate bill of particulars upon defendants’ compliance with the order as modified. (Appeal from order of Monroe Special Term granting plaintiff’s motion for an order of preclusion to preclude the defendants from giving testimony upon certain conditions.) Present—• Williams, P. J., Goldman, Halpern, McClusky and Henry, JJ.