alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
PUBLISH
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

_____________________________________ No. 95-2138

_____________________________________ D. C. Docket No. 91-MDL-878

IN RE INFANT FORMULA ANTITRUST LITIGATION, MDL 878; FLEMING COMPANIES, INC.; STATE OF LOUISIANA, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
versus ABBOTT LABORATORIES, Defendant-Appellee.

______________________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida

_______________________________________ (December 20, 1995) Before EDMONDSON, DUBINA and BARKETT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: This is an appeal by class plaintiffs ("Appellants") of an order denying their motion for a preliminary and permanent injunction against Locator of Missing Heirs, Inc. ("Appellee"), a non-party to the pending Antitrust action brought by Appellants against several manufacturers of infant formula. The district* Appellants propose the All Writs Act as a basis for subject matter jurisdiction for the first time on appeal. Appellants never raised this issue at trial and are foreclosed from raising it now. Singleton v. Wulff , 96 S.Ct. 2868, 2877 (1976); Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Verex Assurance, Inc. , 3 F.3d 391, 395 (11th Cir. 1993). 2 court denied Appellants' motion for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We affirm. Appellants say the district court has subject matter jurisdiction over this matter involving a non-party under either Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(d) or the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. §1651. * The district court's conclusion that it lacked subject matter is a question of law reviewed de novo . Sea Vessel, Inc. v. Reyes , 23 F.3d 345 (11th Cir. 1994). The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not create federal jurisdiction, see Owen Equipment & Erection Co. v. Kroger , 98 S.Ct. 2396, 2400 & n.7 (1978). Rule 23(d) is only a procedural law; it is not a grant of subject matter jurisdiction. The district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over this matter. AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 21.1

The following is a list of Avalons subsidiaries except for unnamed subsidiaries which considered in the aggregate as a single subsidiary, would not constitute a significant subsidiary.



|                                           |  |                       
|------------------------------------------ |  | ----------------------
|Subsidiary Name                            |  | State of Incorporation
| American Landfill Management, Inc.       |  | Ohio                  
|                                           | 
|American Construction Supply, Inc.         |  | Ohio                  
|                                           | 
| American Waste Management Services, Inc. |  | Ohio                  
|                                           | 
| Avalon Golf and Country Club, Inc.       |  | Ohio                  
|                                           | 
| Avalon Lakes Golf, Inc.                  |  | Ohio                  
|                                           | 
| Avalon Travel, Inc.                      |  | Ohio                  
|                                           | 
| TBG, Inc.                                |  | Ohio                  
|                                           | 
| Avalon Country Club at Sharon, Inc.      |  | Pennsylvania          
|                                           | 
| Havana Cigar Company                     |  | Pennsylvania          

Parent/subsidiary relationships are indicated by indentations. In each case, 100% of the voting securities of each of the subsidiaries are owned by the
indicated parent of such subsidiary.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3778 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3778

  To permit the Election Assistance Commission to waive the matching 
 requirement for payments made to States for election security grants 
     under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 20, 2020

Mr. Bennet (for himself and Ms. Collins) introduced the following bill; 
    which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Rules and 
                             Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To permit the Election Assistance Commission to waive the matching 
 requirement for payments made to States for election security grants 
     under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``State Elections Preparedness Act''.

SEC. 2. WAIVER OF MATCHING REQUIREMENT FOR ELECTION SECURITY GRANTS TO 
              STATES.

    (a) In General.--In the case where the Election Assistance 
Commission (referred to in this section as the ``Commission'') 
determines exigent circumstances related to the COVID-19 pandemic 
prevent a State from providing matching funds as described in the last 
proviso under the heading ``Election Assistance Commission, Election 
Security Grants'' in the Financial Services and General Government 
Appropriations Act, 2020 (Public Law 116-93; 133 Stat. 2461) (relating 
to the State matching funds requirement), the Commission may waive the 
application of such State matching funds requirement under such proviso 
with respect to any payment made to the State using funds appropriated 
or otherwise made available to the Commission under the Coronavirus 
Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (Public Law 116-136).
    (b) Effective Date.--Subsection (a) shall take effect as if 
included in the enactment of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic 
Security Act (Public Law 116-136).
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS CONTAINED IN THE COMPANY'S ANNUAL REPORT ON
FORM 10-K FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          49,680
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,483
<ALLOWANCES>                                       239
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                54,353
<PP&E>                                          11,622
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,946
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  62,079
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,008
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           243
<OTHER-SE>                                      57,828
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    62,079
<SALES>                                         22,372
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                22,372
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   40,542
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (1,726)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (16,444)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (16,444)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (16,444)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.52)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.52)
        


</TABLE>
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Anthony Jurak, the Chief
Executive Officer and principal financial officer of Jurak Corporation World Wide, Inc.
(the Company) in compliance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, hereby certify that, the Companys
Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the period ended May 31, 2004 fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
the Company.

|Date: September 7, 2004 |  | Signed: /s/ Anthony Jurak                                      | 
|----------------------- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------- | 
|                        |  |                                                               
|                        |  | Name: Anthony Jurak                                            | 
|                        |  | Title: Chief Executive Officer and principal financial officer | 

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act 2002 and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-KSB or as
separate desclosure documents. A signed original of this written statement has
been provided to Jurak Corporation World Wide, Inc. and will be retained by
Jurak Corporation World Wide, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Kirk *v.*The State.

*Larceny.*

(Decided June 8, 1915.

69 South. 350.)

1. *Larceny; Indictment; Variance.*— Where the indictment alleged that the pistol was stolen from a warehouse belonging to a certain corporation, and the evidence showed that it was stolen from an office under the same roof as the warehouse, and directly connected with it by a door, there was no variance; such office being part of the warehouse within the meaning -of section 7324, Code 1907.

2. *Indictment and Information; Clerical Error; Name.*— An indictment for larceny from the warehouse of a certain fertilizer company was not defective fatally because the name of the fertilizer company was stated as “Fertilize Company”; such error being a self-correcting clerical error.

Appeal from Clay County Court.

Heard before Hon. E. J. Garrison.

Dee Kirk was convicted of larceny, and he appeals.

Affirmed.

No counsel marked for appellant.

W. L. Martin, Attorney General, and J. P. Mudd, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

PELHAM, P. J.

(1) The indictment upon which the defendant was tried and convicted contains but one count, and is drawn to charge grand larceny under the section of the Code defining that offense (Code, § 7324). *317It charges that the pistol stolen was the property of one G. A. Mattison, and that it was stolen by the defendant from a warehouse of the “Ashland Oil Mill & Fertilize Company, a corporation.”

It was shown without conflict in the evidence that the Ashland Oil Mill & Fertilizer Company had one warehouse used for storing seed, called the seed warehouse, and another for storing meal and hulls; that near by was yet another building under separate roof having two rooms connected by a door, one of the rooms being used as an office, and the connecting room used for storing minor supplies for the mill, such as ribs for the gin, packing ropes, belting, and other supplies and articles for repair and keeping up the machinery connected with the plant. The pistol was stolen from a desk in the room in this building used as an office. The room in the building connected by a door with the office, used for storing supplies, etc., was a warehouse within the meaning of the statute, and the office under the same roof connected directly with it by a door which opened into it was a part of the *warehouse.*—Andrews *v. State,*123 Ala. 42, 26 South. 522.

(2) The statement of the name of the fertilizer company as “Fertilize Company” in the indictment is shown on its face to be a clerical error that is self-correcting.*—Holland v. State,*11 Ala. App. 134, 66 South. 126, and authorities there cited.

The motion of the defendant to exclude from the jury all the evidence of the pistol having been taken from the office, because Qí lr supposed variance between the allegata and prq’bata, was propeidy denied. The court’s refusal to givg the general charge requested by the defendant for ihe same reason was also free from error.

We find xio error in the record.

Affirmed.
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas** January 23, 2023 No. 04 - 23 - 00033 - CR IN RE Christian Prieto PRIETO Original Mandamus Proceeding ORDER Relator s moved to consolidate this original proceeding with Cause Nos. 04 - 23 - 00028 - CR , 04 - 23 - 00029 - CR , 04 - 23 - 00030 - C R, 04 - 23 - 00031 - CR , 04 - 23 - 00032 - CR , 04 - 23 - 00033 - CR , 04 - 23 - 00034 - CR , 04 - 23 - 00035 - CR , 04 - 23 - 00036 - CR , 04 - 23 - 00037 - CR , 04 - 23 - 00038 - CR , 04 - 23 - 00039 - CR , 04 - 23 - 00040 - CR , 04 - 23 - 0 0041 - CR , 04 - 23 - 00042 - CR , 04 - 23 - 00043 - CR , 04 - 23 - 00044 - CR , 04 - 23 - 00045 - CR , 04 - 23 - 00046 - CR , 04 - 23 - 00047 - CR , and 04 - 23 - 00051 - CR . Real party in interest is not opposed to the motion s . Having considered the motions, we GRANT relators ’ motions to consolidate. W e ORDER Cause Nos. 04 - 23 - 0002 8 - CR , 04 - 23 - 00029 - CR, 04 - 23 - 00030 - CR, 04 - 23 - 00031 - CR, 04 - 23 - 00032 - CR, 04 - 23 - 00033 - CR, 04 - 23 - 00034 - CR, 04 - 23 - 00035 - CR, 04 - 23 - 00036 - CR, 04 - 23 - 00037 - CR, 04 - 23 - 00038 - CR, 04 - 23 - 00039 - CR, 04 - 23 - 00040 - CR, 04 - 23 - 00041 - CR, 04 - 23 - 00042 - C R, 04 - 23 - 00043 - CR, 04 - 23 - 00044 - CR, 04 - 23 - 00045 - CR, 04 - 23 - 00046 - CR, 04 - 23 - 00047 - CR, and 04 - 23 - 00051 - CR , consolidated for purposes of briefing and argument , if any . The parties must file any motions and briefs as if the proceedings were one; however, all cau se numbers must be included on the documents. The court will dispose of the original proceedings with separate orders and opinions except to the extent the original proceedings involve the same defendant. It is so ORDERED on January 23, 2023 . PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO :

_________________________ Michael A. Cruz , Clerk of Court
<TABLE> <S> <C>






<ARTICLE>                          5
<LEGEND>                           
<RESTATED>
<CIK>                              0000797917
<NAME>                             RAYTECH CORP
<MULTIPLIER>                       1,000
<CURRENCY>                         U.S. DOLLARS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                  JAN-03-1999
<PERIOD-START>                     DEC-29-1997
<PERIOD-END>                       MAR-29-1998
<PERIOD-TYPE>                      3-MOS
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                    1
   
<CASH>                             8,641
<SECURITIES>                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                      32,232
<ALLOWANCES>                       746
<INVENTORY>                        28,292
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                   77,959
<PP&E>                             146,639
<DEPRECIATION>                     84,021
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                     159,357
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>              67,751
<BONDS>                            0
<COMMON>                           5,542
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>              0
<PREFERRED>                        0
<OTHER-SE>                         47,286 
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>       159,357
<SALES>                            62,895 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                   62,895 
<CGS>                              48,200 
<TOTAL-COSTS>                      48,200
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                   0     
<LOSS-PROVISION>                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                 903  
<INCOME-PRETAX>                    6,689  
<INCOME-TAX>                       2,542
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                3,694
<DISCONTINUED>                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                    0
<CHANGES>                          0
<NET-INCOME>                       3,694
<EPS-PRIMARY>                      1.10
<EPS-DILUTED>                      1.05



    

</TABLE>
AAM-13-121-E

January 16, 2013

Exemption No. 10229A

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2011-0228

Mr. Roger Currier

President

Currier’s Flying Service, Inc.

P.O. Box 351

Greenville Junction, ME 04442

Dear Mr. Currier:

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your petition to extend Exemption 10229. It 

explain the basis our decision and describes its effect, and lists the conditions and limitations.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter dated December 10, 2012, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration 

(FAA) on behalf of Currier’s Flying Service, Inc. (Currier’s Flying Service), for an extension

of Exemption No. 10229. That exemption from part 120 of Title 14, Code of Federal 

Regulations (14 CFR) allows Currier’s Flying Service to cover its safety-sensitive employees 

under one testing program. 

In your petition, you indicate that there has been no change in the conditions and reasons 

relative to public interest and safety that were the basis for granting the original exemption.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition 

in the Federal Register because the requested exemption would not set a precedent, and any 

delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Currier’s Flying Service.

Our Decision

The FAA has determined that the justification for the issuance of Exemption No. 10229

remains valid with respect to this exemption and is in the public interest. Therefore, under the 
2

authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator has 

delegated to me, I grant your petition.

Conditions and Limitations 

1. Employees of Currier’s Flying Service are subject to the drug and alcohol 

regulations at all times while conducting operations under part 135 or part 91.

2. The drug and alcohol testing program must be implemented under the auspices of 

the Currier’s Flying Service part 135 operation, not under part 91. 

This exemption terminates on April 30, 2015, unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Sincerely,

/s/

James R. Fraser, M.D.

Deputy Federal Air Surgeon
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of
ViaSat, Inc. (the Company) hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge, that:

(a) the accompanying quarterly report on
Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2015 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended; and

(b) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company.



|                       |  |  |  |  |  |                        
|---------------------- |  |  |  |  |  | -----------------------
|Date: February 9, 2016 |  |  |  |  |  | /s/ MARK DANKBERG      
|                       |  |  |  |  |  | Mark Dankberg          
|                       |  |  |  |  |  | Chief Executive Officer

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of
ViaSat, Inc. (the Company) hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge, that:

(a) the accompanying quarterly report on
Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2015 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended; and

(b) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company.



|                       |  |  |  |  |  |                        
|---------------------- |  |  |  |  |  | -----------------------
|Date: February 9, 2016 |  |  |  |  |  | /s/ SHAWN DUFFY        
|                       |  |  |  |  |  | Shawn Duffy            
|                       |  |  |  |  |  | Chief Financial Officer
§ 1253.230 Transition plans. ( a ) *Submission of plans.* An institution to which § 1253.225 applies and that is composed of more than one administratively separate unit may submit either a single transition plan applicable to all such units, or a separate transition plan applicable to each such unit.
( b ) *Content of plans.* In order to be approved by the Secretary of Education, a transition plan shall: ( 1 ) State the name, address, and Federal Interagency Committee on Education Code of the educational institution submitting such plan, the administratively separate units to which the plan is applicable, and the name, address, and telephone number of the person to whom questions concerning the plan may be addressed. The person who submits the plan shall be the chief administrator or president of the institution, or another individual legally authorized to bind the institution to all actions set forth in the plan.
( 2 ) State whether the educational institution or administratively separate unit admits students of both sexes as regular students and, if so, when it began to do so.
( 3 ) Identify and describe with respect to the educational institution or administratively separate unit any obstacles to admitting students without discrimination on the basis of sex.
( 4 ) Describe in detail the steps necessary to eliminate as soon as practicable each obstacle so identified and indicate the schedule for taking these steps and the individual directly responsible for their implementation.
( 5 ) Include estimates of the number of students, by sex, expected to apply for, be admitted to, and enter each class during the period covered by the plan.
( c ) *Nondiscrimination.* No policy or practice of a recipient to which § 1253.225 applies shall result in treatment of applicants to or students of such recipient in violation of §§ 1253.300 through 1253.310 unless such treatment is necessitated by an obstacle identified in paragraph (b)(3) of this section and a schedule for eliminating that obstacle has been provided as required by paragraph (b)(4) of this section.
( d ) *Effects of past exclusion.* To overcome the effects of past exclusion of students on the basis of sex, each educational institution to which § 1253.225 applies shall include in its transition plan, and shall implement, specific steps designed to encourage individuals of the previously excluded sex to apply for admission to such institution. Such steps shall include instituting recruitment programs that emphasize the institution's commitment to enrolling students of the sex previously excluded.
#### GINGOLD v. COPLON.

(Decided April 20, 1915.)

Appeal from Birmingham City Court.

Heard before Hon. John H. Miller.

No counsel marked for appellant. Baugi-i & Emerson, for appellee.

Per curiam.

Appeal dismissed for want of prosecution.
#### § 13.70 Delegation of authority.

The authority of the Administrator under 49 U.S.C. 5121(a) and (d) is delegated to the Chief Counsel, each Deputy Chief Counsel, and the Assistant Chief Counsel for Enforcement.

[Docket FAA-2018-1051, Amdt. 13-40A, 87 FR 61233, Oct. 11, 2022]