alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# NT A NIPPO N TRAVE L AGENC Y Nippo n Trave l Agenc y America . Inc . db a NT A Americ a Greate rLo s Angele s Branc h Offic e 102 5 Wes t 190t h Street , Suit e 301 . Gardena . Californi a 9024 8 Phone : f310 1 630-089 8 Fax : (310 ) 630-089 6

Marc h 12 , 201 0

— I Th e Honorabl e Ra

y LaHoo d ;~: i Secretary ~ ' ij ~ Unite d State s Departmen t o f Transportatio n --- S 120 0 Ne w Jerse y Avenue , S E . sir j Washington , D.C . /. j s 2059 0 - ^ Subject : Haned aCombination Service s Allocatio n Proceeding DOT-OST-2010-001 8 Dea r Secretar y LaHood : A s adedicate d trave l partne r o f America n Airlines , I a

mwritin g in suppor

t o f American' s applicatic

mt o provide new servic e fromNe w Yoik' s John F . Kenned y Internationa

l Airpor t an d Lx> s Angele s Internationa

l Airpor t t o Toky o Internationa

l Airpor t at Haneda . I recogniz e and ^plau d yo

u and th e Obamaadministratio n fo r you r succes s las t

Decembe r in reachin g a landmari c Ope n Skie s agreemen

t wit h Japan , whic

h open s up Hanedat o servic e b y U.S . airlines . I encourag e you

r selectio n o f

America n Airline s t o provide nonstop servic e fro mNew Yoik

an d Lo s Angele s t o Hanedai

n orde r t o provide a

n essentia l ccmnectio

n between thre e o f

th e world' s larges t

financial an

d commerc e centers . Recen t events , includin g th e successfu l preservatio n o f

Japa n Airlines ' oneworl d Allianc e membersh^) , have underscore d American' s stron g commitmen t t o th e Trans-Pacifi c market . America n i s likevns e committe d t o Ne w Yor k and Lo s Angele s - bot

h vita l focal point s o f

business , trade , entertainment , technolog y an d educatio n - providin g unsurpasse d ai r servic e sinc e th e mid-1900 s Bot h th e New Yor

k and Lo s Angele s metr

o area s will gai n significan

t economi c benefit s fro

mthes e propose d ne w flights, a s will American' s customer s an d employees . However , we nee d you r hel p t o mak e th e JFK/Hanedaconnectio n areality . Therefore , I strongl

y urg e yo u t o sa y ye s t o America

n Airline s and it s reques t

fo r slot s t o fly fi'omJFK

or LA X t o Haneda ! Sincerely , Minoa j Mik e Ued a Genera l Manage r NT A Americ a Inc . (Nippo n Trave l Agency) 102 5 W . ISO* " Street , Suit e 30 1 Gardena , C

A 9024 8
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION REQUIRED BY SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The certification set forth below is being submitted in connection with this quarterly report on Form 10-Q (the report) for the purpose of complying with
Rule 13a14(b) or Rule 15d14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code.

Ray C. Dillon, the Chief Executive Officer, and Kenneth D. Mann, the Chief Financial Officer, each certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

condition and results of operations of Deltic Timber Corporation.



/s/ Ray C. DillonRay C. DillonChief Executive OfficerAugust 6, 2008/s/ Kenneth D. MannKenneth D. MannChief Financial OfficerAugust 6, 2008
#### NUSL, Respondent, v. SCHACK, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

March 3, 1905.)

Action by Joseph Nusl against Morris Sehack.

PER CURIAM.

Judgment of the Municipal Court affirmed, with costs.

HOOKER, J., not voting.
#### QUAIL, Respondent, v. METROPOLITAN ST. RY. CO., Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

November 20, 1903.)

Action by John H. Quail against the Metropolitan Street Railway Company.

No opinion. Appeal dismissed, with taxable costs, before argument.
#### THE PEOPLE ex *rel.*COUNTY OF LA SALLE, Plaintiff-Appellee, *v.*ROBERT D. ENGEL *et al.,*Defendants-Appellants.

Third District

No. 81-33

Opinion filed September 29,1981.

Rehearing denied October 28,1981.

*505John Kevin Kneafsey, of Chicago, for appellants.

Gary L. Peterlin, State’s Attorney, of Ottawa (James A. Lanuti, Assistant State’s Attorney, of counsel), for appellee.

Mr. JUSTICE HEIPLE

delivered the opinion of the court:

Appellants in this case were attempting to conduct a public auction sale of real estate. The County of La Salle (hereinafter County) thought that the proposed sale violated the County’s subdivision ordinance. A lawsuit to enjoin the sale was filed by the County. Without service on any of the appellants and without notice to them, an *ex parte*hearing was held on January 16, 1981, and a temporary restraining order was issued which restrained appellants from proceeding with the sale which had been advertised for the following day.

The temporary restraining order was served, and the proposed sale was not held.

Appellants filed a motion to vacate the temporary restraining order and a separate motion for substitution of judge. Both were denied. Both should have been granted.

The relevant facts may be succinctly stated. Appellants had been interested in selling the subject real estate for a considerable period of time. Notice of the proposed January 17 sale appeared in an advertisement in a local paper on December 11, which is to say, more than 30 days before the sale was to take place. The County did not file its lawsuit until January 13. The temporary restraining order was obtained on January 16. Not until the temporary restraining order was issued were the appellants served or notified of the lawsuit.

 Certainly, there are circumstances which can warrant the issuance of a temporary restraining order without notice. Such circumstances, however, must be made manifest. No such circumstances were shown in this case. No service was obtained, and no notice of the hearing was given. Appellants were entitled to notice of the hearing. Careful examination of the record causes us to believe that service could have been obtained and notice given in this case. Efforts in this regard were feeble at best. While this finding is completely dispositive of the case, we also note that the complaint for temporary restraining order was defective because it was *506not verified. This is a fatal flaw. Finally, the motion for substitution of judge, which was filed by appellants immediately upon their entry into the case, was timely and should have been granted.

The orders of the Circuit Court of La Salle County denying the motion to vacate the temporary restraining order and denying the motion for substitution of judge are reversed. The temporary restraining order is vacated. This cause is remanded to the Circuit Court of La Salle County.

Reversed and remanded.

SCOTT, P. J., and ALLOY, J., concur.
Exhibit 4.3


 


[FRONT OF STOCK CERTIFICATE]


  


SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR IMPORTANT NOTICE REGARDING
SHARE OWNERSHIP AND

TRANSFER RESTRICTIONS AND CERTAIN OTHER INFORMATION


 


	 CERT NO.: _____________________	_________________________ SHARES 
	 	 
	 	CUSIP:  47100L 103


 


 


 


JANOVER INC.


Incorporated
under the Laws of the State of Delaware


 


Common
Stock


 


This is to Certify that ____________________________ is
the owner of ________________  (_______ ) fully paid and non-assessable shares of Janover Inc. transferable only
on the books of the Corporation by the holder hereof in person or by duly authorized Attorney upon surrender of this Certificate properly
endorsed.


 


Witness, the seal of the Corporation and
the signatures of its duly authorized officers.


 


Dated: _______________ , 20___


  


[Corporate Seal]


 


	 	 	 
	Blake E. Janover	 	Patrick Stinus
	President & Chief Executive Officer	 	Interim Chief Financial Officer & Senior Vice President of Finance


 




    	 



     


    

 


[BACK OF STOCK CERTIFICATE]


  


The following abbreviations,
when used in the inscription on the face of this certificate, shall be construed as though they were written out in full according to
applicable laws or regulations:


 


	TEN COM	 	— as tenants in common	 	UNIF GIFT MIN ACT   —	 	_________Custodian __________
	TEN ENT	 	— as tenants by the entireties	 	 	 	      (Cust)                      (Minor)
	JT TEN	 	— as joint tenants with right of	 	 	 	under Uniform Gifts to Minors Act
	 	 	survivorship and not as tenants	 	 	 	________________________
	 	 	in common	 	 	 	(State)


 


Additional abbreviations may also
be used though not in the above list.


 


For value received              
hereby sell, assign and transfer unto                             


 


For value received              
hereby sell, assign and transfer unto                             


 


	PLEASE INSERT SOCIAL SECURITY OR OTHER	 
	IDENTIFYING NUMBER OF ASSIGNEE	 
	 	 
	 	 
	 	 
	 	 


 


(PLEASE PRINT OR TYPEWRITE
NAME AND ADDRESS INCLUDING POSTAL ZIP CODE OF ASSIGNEE)


  


________________________________________________         
Shares represented by the within Certificate, and do hereby irrevocably constitute and appoint   ___________________________ 
Attorney to transfer the said Shares on the books of the within named Corporation with full power of substitution in the premises.


 


Dated   ________________  ,
20 _____


 


	In presence of	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	 	NOTICE: THE SIGNATURE TO THIS ASSIGNMENT MUST CORRESPOND WITH THE NAME AS WRITTEN UPON THE FACE OF THE CERTIFICATE IN EVERY PARTICULAR WITHOUT ALTERATION OR ENLARGEMENT OR ANY CHANGE WHATEVER.
### §1953. Antidrug program

#### (a) Plan

The Department of the Interior shall develop, in cooperation with the Government of Palau and the National Drug Control Policy Office, a plan for an antidrug program in Palau. The plan shall be submitted to the Committees on Interior and Insular Affairs, Foreign Affairs, and Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Committees on Energy and Natural Resources and Appropriations of the Senate by April 1, 1990. The plan shall: (1) identify the specific needs and costs of such an antidrug program; (2) shall identify all existing resources to be allocated for its implementation by the Government of the United States and the Government of Palau; and (3) shall recommend priority use for additional resources, assuming such resources are made available.

#### (b) Agreement

Following completion of the plan, the President and the Government of Palau shall negotiate an agreement to facilitate implementation of the plan. Such agreement may include—

(1) that the Government of Palau may request, on a long-term or case-by-case basis, that the officers of United States law enforcement agencies may conduct investigations consistent with implementation of the plan in cooperation with the law enforcement agencies of the Government of Palau;

(2) that the Government of Palau or the Government of the United States may agree to provide specific resources, on a one-time or a multiyear basis, to strengthen the antidrug program; and

(3) a specific description of the technical assistance, training, and equipment to be provided to Palau by the United States necessary to implement the plan.

(Pub. L. 101–219, title I, §103, Dec. 12, 1989, 103 Stat. 1870.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was formerly set out as a note under section 1681 of this title.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Change of Name

Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs of House of Representatives changed to Committee on Natural Resources of House of Representatives by House Resolution No. 5, One Hundred Third Congress, Jan. 5, 1993.
**EXHIBIT 21**

**Subsidiaries of the Registrant**

| **Parent**                                             |   | **State or   Other   Jurisdiction of   Incorporation** |   | **Percentage   Ownership** |
|--------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------|--------|----------------------------|
|                                                        |   |                                                        |   |                            |
| Kentucky   First Federal Bancorp                       |   | United   States                                        |   | N/A                        |
| **Subsidiaries (1)**                                   |   |                                                   |   |                       |
| First   Federal Savings and Loan Association of Hazard |   | United   States                                        |   | 100%                       |
| Frankfort   First Bancorp, Inc.                        |   | Delaware                                               |   | 100%                       |
| First   Federal Savings Bank of Frankfort (2)          |   | United   States                                        |   | 100%                       |
BA/IIDocpj-1 

# s 

# s . s



# s Cnu.Se 

### !/e..', (ic./-JDJS-0] LEAVE Ttl 

### Ez t.t= /IN (U 

### f3S EQ t1 FNT

# -(~

------i----"-A.J..!f_JP_-'L==-.....T"'""'c'--'· fLL___I oN F C> (l_ 

### \rlf?.. I T D F**tyj_B__N_[)_{j__jjfj,~....;L_-----------** -------t::Co THt; HONORABLE (otARI OF CIZ_-:LM "I f\/AL APPEAl-S!

Ti
EX-4.1





 Exhibit 4.1 
  





 
 NUMBER SHARES 00000000 00000000 INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR CERTAIN DEFINITIONS
CUSIP000000000 THIS CERTIFIES THAT AMERICAN STOCKCOUNTER BY SIGNED IS THE OWNER OF TRANSFERAND & FULLY PAID AND NON-ASSESSABLE SHARES OF COMMON STOCK, $0.01 PAR VALUE, OF TRUST PORTILLO’S INC.
REGISTERED: transferable on the books of the Corporation by the holder hereof in person or by Attorney upon surrender of this certificate properly endorsed. This certificate is not valid until countersigned and registered by the Transfer Agent and
Registrar. COMPANY IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said Corporation has caused this certificate to be signed by facsimile signatures of its duly authorized officers. AND DATED TRANSFER REGISTRAR PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER GENERAL COUNSEL
AUTHORIZEDSIGNATURE AGENT 
  












 



 
 lB’f 9IT - ;a~Jen.:Jr;t.s b’l emre;:~ ~ff TE—mpii’l,,enant15’irinn:~hof~~ 0111d nell .tr. lll!rl.:zm5 a an:nen
Add£131 ~oRSm!I’J .:bJ be u~IIJiough no, 1r1 1ha 01b::r.~ li~ ~£lr.eJ” ef’t!u..~ caJital-1·toch    l“ejJre~en.ted~!I the toiLhut CertJ(/caL£~}
cmddo·    hert”‘f~ irr£”‘OOl.Y~44f co-nali/uLe tmdapjofft.t Jlttvrnf¥ /0 /ra/#’,.I’L lhL’lrSO.ula:tot’k 0:/‘l the. 6oohs ef’t!h£’ f/1-i/htn -/lfl/llt?d CorjJO-ralion    aHlijt~ltjJOtt.Jt:r·(!/‘aabJ·Iilalion. in lhej Jrt>rl1~re~r. 0aLetl l’l.al: lllli~IO~U.’TII.m CORKim\I:W I
nlli-Ml~..-n:lil’olii:l: D’“lK DllmOIIOI’i ~t’M’IDJAI’I’Ima.T~Olll\JJA~YC~W\JI1i\m SIGNATURE GUARANTEED
### §13502. Exempt transportation between Alaska and other States

To the extent that transportation by a motor carrier between a place in Alaska and a place in another State under section 13501 is provided in a foreign country—

(1) neither the Secretary nor the Board has jurisdiction to impose a requirement over conduct of the motor carrier in the foreign country conflicting with a requirement of that country; but

(2) the motor carrier, as a condition of providing transportation in the United States, shall comply, with respect to all transportation provided between Alaska and the other State, with the requirements of this part related to rates and practices applicable to the transportation.

(Added Pub. L. 104–88, title I, §103, Dec. 29, 1995, 109 Stat. 859.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

Provisions similar to those in this section were contained in section 10522 of this title prior to the general amendment of this subtitle by Pub. L. 104–88, §102(a).

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date

Section effective Jan. 1, 1996, except as otherwise provided in Pub. L. 104–88, see section 2 of Pub. L. 104–88, set out as a note under section 1301 of this title.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Abraham Hedrich, Appellant.

In a *coram nobis*proceeding, defendant appeals from an order of the County Court, Kings County, dated December 12, 1961, which denied, without a hearing, his application to vacate a judgment of said court, rendered July 19, 1960 after trial, convicting him of grand larceny in the first degree and imposing sentence. Order affirmed. No opinion. Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Kleinfeld, Christ and Hill, JJ., concur.
#### § 92.105 Designation as a participating jurisdiction.

When a jurisdiction has complied with the requirements of §§ 92.102 through 92.104 and HUD has approved the jurisdiction's consolidated plan in accordance with 24 CFR part 91, HUD will designate the jurisdiction as a participating jurisdiction.
### §1592. Repealed. Pub. L. 89–554, §8(a), Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 657

Section, act July 22, 1954, ch. 558, §20(a), 68 Stat. 505, prescribed compensation of Governor.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 20 of act July 22, 1954, was amended in its entirety by section 10 of Pub. L. 90–496, Aug. 23, 1968, 82 Stat. 841, which consolidated the text of said section 20 into a single unlettered paragraph, classified to section 1641 of this title. Prior to the 1968 amendment said section 20 was comprised of subsecs. (a) to (c). Subsec. (a) was classified to this section, and subsecs. (b) and (c) were classified to sections 1598 and 1641, respectively, of this title.
# United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted August 25, 2015 *

Decided August 25 , 2015

Before

RICHARD D. CUDAHY, Circuit Judge

MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge

DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge

No. 1 5

- 1829

JOSEPH LEE BELL, JR. , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v

.
GREGORY WAYNE NAWROCKI, et al. , Defendants

- Appellees

. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin

.

No. 15

- cv

- 249

- pp
Pamela Pepper, Judge

.

O R D E R
Joseph Bell filed this action in federal court against his Milwaukee landlord and two other men. Essentially he alleges that his landlord tried to pressure him into abandoning his apartment by withholding adequate heat and hiring the other defendants

— one of them a neighborhood drug dealer

— to provoke a physical

* The appellees were not served with process in the district court and are not participating in this appeal. After examining the appellant’s brief and the record, we have concluded that this case is appropriate for summary disposition. See F ED

. R. A PP

. P. 34 (a)(2). NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1No. 15

- 1829 Page 2

altercation and give the landlord a prete xt to evict him. The action of the defendants, Bell claims, violated the terms of his lease as well as state landlord

- tenant laws.

The district court screened Bell’s complaint, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Rowe v. Shake , 196 F.3d 778, 783 (7th Cir. 1999) , and dismissed the action after concluding that Bell does not assert any claims under federal law or allege diversity jurisdiction over his
state

- law claims. Bell appeals, but he does not dispute the absence of diversity jurisdiction. And, as the dis trict court explained, there is no federal

- question jurisdiction because Bell’s complaint raises only state

- law claims. Thus the district court properly dismissed the case for want of subject

- matter jurisdiction.

AFFIRMED.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 12**  **- 7983** 

JOSE ALBERTO OSORIO , Petitioner

- Appellant ,
v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA , Respondent

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Alexandria
. Leonie M. Brinkema , District Judge. ( 1:12

- cv - 00134

- LMB

- JFA )

Submitted : April 18, 2013 Decided: April 22, 2013

Before WILKINSON, GREGORY , and DAVIS , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Jose Alberto Osorio, Appellant Pro Se. Robert H. Anderson, III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Jose Alberto Osorio seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (A) (2006) . A certificate of ap pealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006)
. When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jur ists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedu ral grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the re cord and conclude that Osorio has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately3 presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
###### Editorial Note on Part 250

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 250 appear at 77 FR 50891, Aug. 22, 2012.

#### § 250.609 Well-workover structures on fixed platforms.

Derricks, masts, substructures, and related equipment shall be selected, designed, installed, used, and maintained so as to be adequate for the potential loads and conditions of loading that may be encountered during the operations proposed. Prior to moving a well-workover rig or well-servicing equipment onto a platform, the lessee shall determine the structural capability of the platform to safely support the equipment and proposed operations, taking into consideration the corrosion protection, age of the platform, and previous stresses to the platform.
Order entered February 17, 2023

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-23-00092-CV

IN RE: ESTATE OF FLO DELMARENE MCCARTHY, DECEASED

On Appeal from the Probate Court No. 1

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. PR-18-00439-1

ORDER

Before the Court is the February 15, 2023 request of Jackie Galindo, Official 

Court Reporter for Probate Court No. 1, for an extension of time to file the 

reporter’s record. Appellee has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for want of 

jurisdiction. Appellant’s response to the motion is due on February 20, 2023. In 

light of the pending motion to dismiss, we SUSPEND the deadline for the 

reporter’s record. Should the Court determine it has jurisdiction over the appeal, it 

will set a new deadline for the reporter’s record.

/s/ KEN MOLBERG

JUSTICE