alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
How to Spot a Scam...

Just because a product is called

“natural” does not mean it is safe.

Don’t believe promises like “lose

weight while you sleep.” If it sounds

too easy, it might be a scam.

It’s Called Health Fraud

• Lots of people are fooled into buying health products that 

sound great, but are really fakes. 

• Some products may cause serious problems like pain, 

suffering, or even death. 

• Some products may not mix well with your other medicines. 

• You may also lose your money on scam products that 

don’t work.

Watch out for these claims. It might be a scam.

It’s Natural It’s So Easy!
Generally, one pill will not treat or

cure many different illnesses like

cancer, diabetes, AIDS, or arthritis.

Don’t feel pressured to buy. Take

time to get the facts about the

product first.

BEFORE AFTER!

Always feel free to ask your doctor,

nurse, or pharmacist what is best

for your health.

Pay Now and Save

Miracle Cure!

They Don’t Want You To Know 

Personal success stories by “real

people” or doctors are easy to

make up.

It Worked For Me
Protect yourself and your family

•	 Talk to a doctor, nurse, or pharmacist or call the Food and Drug 	 	

Administration (FDA) at 1-888-463-6332 before you use any

	 health product

•	 Get the facts about health fraud at: www.fda.gov/healthfraud

•	 Report a problem with a product to the Food and Drug Administration

	 (FDA) www.fda.gov/medwatch or 1-800-332-1088

•	 Report false advertising to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC)

www.ftc.gov or 1-877-382-4357

Health Fraud... 

Don’t take the risk with your health or your money.

You might see ads on TV or the Internet that make a lot of promises 

about a new health product. However, you don’t know if it can really 

help you. It may even hurt you. 

This brochure is made available by the:

This information was produced in collaboration between FDA’s

Office of Women’s Health and Office of Enforcement.

www.fda.gov/womens

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) defines health fraud as the 

deceptive promotion, advertising, distribution, or sale of a product 

represented as being effective to prevent, diagnose, treat, cure, or 

lessen an illness or condition, or provide another beneficial effect on 

health, but that has not been scientifically proven safe and effective 

for such purposes.
This page provides data on the Federal Student Financial Aid Programs compiled by the Office of Postsecondary Education.

## Federal Pell Grant Program, Academic Competitiveness, and National SMART Grants Data

This page provides the annual Pell Grant Program End of Year Reports, data on Academic Competitiveness and National SMART Grants, and data on Pell distribution by institution.

## Federal Campus-Based Programs Data

This page provides the annual Federal Campus-Based Programs Data Books.

## Federal TEACH Grant Program Data

This page provides Teacher Education Assistance for College and Higher Education (TEACH) Grant Program data by institution and award year.

## Federal Student Loan Programs Data

This page provides Federal Student Loan Program Data Books and other data  related to the Federal Student Loan Programs.

## Loan Volume Updates

Summary loan volume data on the major student loan programs administered by the U.S. Department of Education.

## Other Data Sources

U.S. Department of Education Budget News

Cohort Default Rates (Federal Student Aid Programs site)

Federal Student Aid Programs - School, Lender, and Program Data

National Center for Education Statistics

 Disclaimer

Data.gov - The purpose of Data.gov is to increase public access to high value, machine readable datasets generated by the Executive Branch of the Federal Government.

FedStats - Gateway to statistics from over 100 U.S. federal agencies

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data - Provides data on prices, employment, pay and benefits, spending, productivity, and more.

U.S. Bureau of the Census - Includes data on people and households, business and industry, and more.

Top

OPE Home | OPE Policy Page
#### Adam Young, Inc., Appellant, v. Ivy Broadcasting Company, Inc., Respondent.

Order, entered on March 31, 1964, relative to the examination of defendant and the production of its records, unanimously modified, on the law and on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, to provide that the expenses referred to in the second ordering paragraph shall be paid by defendant instead of plaintiff, and that defendant shall produce, in addition to the correspondence referred to in the fifth ordering paragraph, any other documents or records which in any way relate to the level of performance expected of plaintiff, and, as so modified, said order is affirmed, without costs. Consent to the modifications is contained in defendant’s brief, and we see no reason to alter Special Term’s disposition in other respects. The point that defendant waived its right to object to the scope of the notice of examination was not raised below, and disregard of that fact is not warranted by this record. Settle order on notice fixing date for examination to proceed. Concur — Botein, P. *J.j*Breitel, Rabin, Eager and Staley, JJ.
U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

Scientific Investigations Report 2009-5146

Prepared as part of the 

U.S. Geological Survey Priority Ecosystems Science Initiative

Development, Testing, and Application of a Coupled 

Hydrodynamic Surface-Water/Groundwater Model 

(FTLOADDS) with Heat and Salinity Transport in the 

Ten Thousand Islands/Picayune Strand Restoration 

Project Area, Florida
Swain and Decker—Development, Testing, and Application of a Coupled Hydrodynamic Surface-Water/Groundwater Model (FTLOADDS)—Scientific Investigations Report 2009-5146

Printed on recycled paper
1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 44022

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

BRAD LEE WACASTER,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2016 Unpublished Opinion No. 794

Filed: November 29, 2016

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Sixth Judicial District, State of Idaho, 

Bannock County. Hon. Robert C. Naftz, District Judge. 

Judgment of conviction and suspended unified sentence of sixteen years, with a 

minimum period of confinement of six years, for aggravated assault, affirmed. 

Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Reed P. Andersen, Deputy 

Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Jessica M. Lorello, Deputy 

Attorney General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before MELANSON, Chief Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge;

and HUSKEY, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM 

Pursuant to a binding I.C.R. 11 plea agreement, Brad Lee Wacaster pled guilty to

aggravated assault. I.C. §§ 18-901(b) and 18-905(a). In exchange for his guilty plea, an 

additional charge was dismissed. According to the plea agreement, the district court would grant 

probation. However, the district court was left with the discretion as to the length of the sentence 

and length of probation. The district court sentenced Wacaster to a unified term of sixteen years, 

with a minimum period of confinement of six years. The district court suspended the sentence 

and placed Wacaster on probation for fifteen years. Wacaster appeals.
2

On appeal, Wacaster argues that the length of his probation is excessive. The State, 

however, asserts that Wacaster’s appeal is barred by the doctrine of invited error. Assuming 

without deciding that Wacaster’s appeal is not barred, we address the merits. Sentencing is a 

matter for the trial court’s discretion. Both our standard of review and the factors to be 

considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the sentence are well established and need not be 

repeated here. See State v. Hernandez, 121 Idaho 114, 117-18, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014-15 (Ct. 

App. 1991); State v. Lopez, 106 Idaho 447, 449-51, 680 P.2d 869, 871-73 (Ct. App. 1984); State 

v. Toohill, 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing the length 

of a sentence, we consider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. Oliver, 144 Idaho 722, 726, 

170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record in this 

case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.

Therefore, Wacaster’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.
#### 22.800 Scope of subpart.

This subpart prescribes policies and procedures pertaining to nondiscrimination in employment by contractors and subcontractors.

[48 FR 42258, Sept. 19, 1983, as amended at 63 FR 70283, Dec. 18, 1998]
EXHIBIT 3.8
 CERTIFICATES OF DESIGNATIONS,
PREFERENCES, POWERS AND RIGHTS
OF
SERIES 2008 PREFERRED STOCK
OF
AXCESS INTERNATIONAL INC.
 AXCESS INTERNATIONAL INC. Company
 RESOLVED
 Section 1. Designation and Amount Original Issue
Price
 Section 2. Rank Senior Securities Common Stock Junior Securities Parity Securities Distributions
 Section 3. Dividends and Distribution




---



##### 



Section 4. Liquidation Preference
 Liquidation Preference
  Section 5. Conversion Conversion Rights
 Right to Convert
 Mechanics of Conversion
 Reservation of Stock Issuable Upon Conversion




---



##### 



Adjustment to Conversion Price
 Adjustment to Conversion Price Due to Stock Split Dividend, Etc.
 Adjustment Due to Merger, Consolidation, Etc.
 Section 6. Voting
 Section 7. Optional Redemption by Company




---



##### 



Section 8. Mandatory Conversion by Company
 Section 9. Status of Converted or Redeemed Stock
 Section 10. Other Preferred Stock
 Section 11. Lost or Stolen Certificates
 Section 12. Fractional Shares
 Section 13. Preemptive Rights
#### 2052.211-70 Preparation of technical reports.

As prescribed at 2011.104-70(a), the contracting officer shall insert the following clause in solicitations and contracts when deliverables include a technical report. The contracting officer may alter this clause before issuing the solicitation or during competition by solicitation amendment. Insignificant changes may also be made by the contracting officer on a case-by-case basis during negotiation without amending the solicitation.

# Preparation of Technical Reports (JAN 1993)

All technical reports required by Section C and all Technical Progress Reports required by Section F are to be prepared in accordance with the attached Management Directive 3.8, “Unclassified Contractor and Grantee Publications in the NUREG Series.” Management Directive 3.8 is not applicable to any Contractor Spending Plan (CSP) and any Financial Status Report that may be included in this contract. (See List of Attachments).

(End of clause)
THOMAS G. BRUTON

CLERK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

219 SOUTH DEARBORN STREET

CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60604

312-435-6860

August 24, 2021

James Nick Pappas 

Burke Costanza & Carberry LLP 

225 W. Washington St., Ste. 2200 

Chicago, IL 60606 

pappas@bcclegal.com

Julia M Bochnowski 

Burke Costanza & Carberry LLP

150 N. Michigan, 8th Floor 

Chicago, IL 60601 

bochnowski@bcclegal.com

Vasilios Savvas Sarikas 

Ferrentino & Sarikas, LLC 

4723 W. Belmont Ave. 

Chicago, IL 60641 

vss@fslawus.com

In re: Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Lupa et al., Case No. 12 CV 3648

Dear Counsel:

It has been brought to my attention that Judge James Zagel, who presided over the above-mentioned case 

and is now retired, may have owned stock in Bank of America. We have no reason to believe that his 

ownership of stock affected or impacted his decisions in this case. However, his stock ownership would 

have required recusal under the Code of Conduct for United States Judges, and thus, I notify the parties of 

the conflict.

Advisory Opinion 71, from the Judicial Conference Codes of Conduct Committee, provides the following 

guidance for addressing disqualification that is not discovered until after a judge has participated in a case:

[A]judge should disclose to the parties the facts bearing on disqualification as soon as those 

facts are learned, even though that may occur after entry of the decision. The parties may 

then determine what relief they may seek, and a court (without the disqualified judge) will 

decide the legal consequence, if any, arising from the participation of the disqualified judge 

in the entered decision. Although Advisory Opinion 71 contemplated disqualification after 

a Court of Appeals oral argument, the Committee explained “[s]imilar considerations 

would apply when a judgment was entered in a district court by a judge and it is later 

learned that the judge was disqualified.”

With Advisory Opinion 71 in mind, you are invited to respond to this disclosure of a conflict in this case. 

Should you wish to respond, please submit your response on or before August 31, 2021. Any response will 

be considered by another judge of this court without the participation of Judge Zagel.

Sincerely, 

Clerk of Court

Case: 1:12-cv-03648 Document #: 31 Filed: 08/24/21 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:112
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

JUDGMENT

In re Kenneth Vern Gibbs and Candace

Gibbs Walton

No. 06

- 15

- 00002

- CV Original Mandamus Proceeding

Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Morriss, Justice Moseley and Justice Burgess partici pating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find that Relator’s petition for writ of

mandamus should be conditionally granted and direct the trial court to set aside its order of

November 21 and to transfer the physical file in this case to the transferee court in Tarrant

County . The writ will issue only if the trial court fails to comply.

RENDERED JANUARY 30, 2015

BY ORDER OF THE COURT JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST: Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> UT
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF CASCADE NATURAL GAS CORPORATION INCLUDED IN
THE QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 1997, AND
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                      256,526
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                      2,415
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                          34,275
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                        12,780
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 305,996
<COMMON>                                        10,869
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                       94,643
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                             13,483
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                 118,995
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            6,630
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                           101,550
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                              12,000
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                   1,000
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                        0
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                     0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                  65,821
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                  305,996
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                      136,145
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                             7,933
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     109,585
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     109,585
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                         26,560
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                                 121
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                  18,748
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         4,701
<NET-INCOME>                                    14,047
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                        255
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                   13,792
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                         5,210
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                            0
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                             736
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.28
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.28
        

</TABLE>
##### 



EXHIBIT 10.11
 Form of Voting Common Stock Purchase Warrant
 ACT
 AXCESS INTERNATIONAL, INC.  Voting Common Stock Purchase Warrant
  A.
    
    This Warrant is issued to , an individual or his successors in interest,
assigns or transferees (collectively, the Warrant Holder), in consideration for their
Participation in the 2005 Preferred Equity transactions by Axcess International, Inc., a
Delaware corporation (the Company).;B.
    
    The total number of shares of the Companys Voting Common Stock (as defined in Section 9(a)
hereof) (the Warrant Shares) to be issued to the Warrant Holder is  shares; andC.
    
    This Warrant shall be exercisable at any time and from time to time on or prior to the March
14, 2011.D.
    
    This Warrant shall be callable by the Company if and when the Companys common stock share
price exceeds $3.00 per share for at least 20 consecutive trading days. The Company shall
notify the holder and the holder shall have twenty (20) business days to acknowledge and fund
the exercised of the warrant.
 Exercise Price
 Section 1. Exercise of Warrant .
 ANNEX
A Total Exercise Price
 Section 2. Investment Representation .
  Section 3. Validity of Warrant and Issue of Shares .




---



##### 



Section 4. Transfer of Rights .
 ANNEX B Warrant
 Section 5. Lost, Mutilated or Missing Warrant .
  Section 6. Rights of Warrant Holder .
  Section 7. Successors .
  Section 8. Miscellaneous .
   Section 9. Notices .
  
    AXCESS INTERNATIONAL INC.By:Allan Frank, Chief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 12



Boeing Capital Corporation and Subsidiaries



Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges



|                                                                                    |  |                          |     |      |   |      |  |      |     |      |   |     |  |   |    
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | ------------------------ | --- | ---- | - | ---- |  | ---- | --- | ---- | - | --- |  | - | ---
|                                                                                    |  | Years Ended December 31,
|(Dollars in millions)                                                               |  | 2008                     |     | 2007 |   | 2006 |  | 2005 |     | 2004
|Earnings:                                                                           |  |                          |     |      |   |      |  |      |     |      |   |     |  |   |    
|Income from continuing operations before provision for income tax                   |  | $                        | 162 |      | $ | 234  |  | $    | 291 |      | $ | 232 |  | $ | 183
|Fixed charges                                                                       |  |                          | 223 |      |   | 297  |  |      | 353 |      |   | 359 |  |   | 350
|Income from continuing operations before provision for income tax and fixed charges |  | $                        | 385 |      | $ | 531  |  | $    | 644 |      | $ | 591 |  | $ | 533
|                                                                                   
|Fixed charges:                                                                      |  |                          |     |      |   |      |  |      |     |      |   |     |  |   |    
|Interest expense                                                                    |  | $                        | 223 |      | $ | 297  |  | $    | 353 |      | $ | 359 |  | $ | 350
|                                                                                   
|Ratio of earnings to fixed charges                                                  |  |                          | 1.7 |      |   | 1.8  |  |      | 1.8 |      |   | 1.6 |  |   | 1.5
|
On May 3, 2012, OCR resolved a Title IX compliance review of Butler University (University).  The review addressed whether the University discriminates against female students by denying them an equal opportunity to participate in  intercollegiate athletics and whether the University discriminates against male or female students by not awarding athletic scholarships or grants-in-aid in proportion to the number of students of each sex participating in intercollegiate athletics.  Prior to the conclusion of OCR's investigation, the University entered into a Resolution Agreement with OCR.  Under the Agreement, by September 1, 2012, the University has to demonstrate that it is accommodating effectively the interests and abilities of female  students in order to provide them an equal opportunity to participate in sports  or, if unable to demonstrate current compliance, submit a detailed plan to OCR to accommodate effectively the interests and abilities of female students in its athletics program over the next three academic years.  The plan must include a description of interim steps that the University will take during the  2012-2013 and 2013-2014 academic years to increase athletic participation opportunities for women. With respect to scholarships, by September 1, 2012, Butler must also demonstrate that during the 2011-2012 school year equal opportunities were provided in awarding athletic scholarships to male and female athletes.  Or, if the University is unable to demonstrate this, it must submit a detailed plan to ensure that by the beginning of the 2014-2015 academic year, Butler is in full compliance with its Title IX obligation to  provide athletic scholarships in a non-discriminatory manner.

***Read  the Press Release | Read    the Resolution Letter***PDF (124K)    | ***Read the Resolution Agreement***PDF (207K)

 

Top
1 

### Kelly, Shaheerah

From: John Waldrop <jwaldrop@co.shasta.ca.us>

Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2014 2:35 PM

To: Kelly, Shaheerah

Subject: RE: SPI Question

Hi Shaheera,

The existing cogeneration plant at SPI Anderson is a 4 Megawatt unit.

Let me know if you need any more information.

Thanks,

John Waldrop

Shasta County AQMD

530-225-5674

From: Kelly, Shaheerah [mailto:Kelly.Shaheerah@epa.gov]

Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2014 1:13 PM

To: John Waldrop

Subject: SPI Question

John,

Can you firm the size of the current cogeneration equipment at the SPI facility is 4 MW? Emails from residents in the

area have stated that it is 4 MW but I have not found any documents that officially state this. I would appreciate your

assistance.

Thanks.

************************************

Shaheerah Kelly

Permits Office, Air Division (AIR-3)

U.S. Environmental Protec tion Agency, Region 9

San Francisco, CA 94105

Phone: 415-947-4156

Fax: 415-947-3579

Email: kelly.shaheerah@epa.gov
Case: 3:12-cv-50158 Document #: 14 Filed: 08/03/12 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:30
Case: 3:12-cv-50158 Document #: 14 Filed: 08/03/12 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:31
Case: 3:12-cv-50158 Document #: 14 Filed: 08/03/12 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:32
***Readthe Resolution Letter***PDF***| Readthe Resolution Agreement***PDF

  

Top