alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 428 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. RES. 428

  Congratulating the University of Southern California women's soccer 
   team on winning the 2007 National Collegiate Athletic Association 
                        Division I Championship.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 25, 2008

  Mrs. Feinstein (for herself and Mrs. Boxer) submitted the following 
             resolution; which was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
  Congratulating the University of Southern California women's soccer 
   team on winning the 2007 National Collegiate Athletic Association 
                        Division I Championship.

Whereas the University of Southern California (USC) Trojans won the 2007 
        National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Women's Soccer 
        Championship by a 2-0 victory over the Florida State University 
        Seminoles on December 9, 2007, at the Aggie Soccer Complex in College 
        Station, Texas;
Whereas the USC Trojans, in the 2007 season, had a 20-3-2 overall record, with 
        13 goals allowed, 15 shutouts, and a perfect 6-0 mark in the NCAA 
        Women's Soccer Tournament, including 5 shutouts;
Whereas the USC Trojans won a Division I women's soccer title for the first time 
        in school history in 2007;
Whereas Marihelen Tomer and Janessa Currier each scored a goal in the 
        championship game;
Whereas Amy Rodriguez was named the tournament's Most Outstanding Offensive 
        Player, Kristin Olsen was named the tournament's Most Outstanding 
        Defensive Player, and Marihelen Tomer, Kasey Johnson, and Janessa 
        Currier were named to the All-Tournament Team;
Whereas Ashley Nick and Kristin Olsen earned All-American Honors for their 
        exceptional contributions during the 2007 season; and
Whereas the 2007 USC women's soccer team members are players Kristin Olsen, 
        Brittany Massro, Nini Loucks, Alyssa Davila, Laura McKee, Kat Stolpa, 
        Lauren Brown, Shannon Lacy, Ashli Sandoval, Jamie Petrossi, Stacey 
        Strong, Karter Haug, Amy Rodriguez, Kasey Johnson, Jacquelyn Johnston, 
        Janessa Currier, Ashley Nick, Marihelen Tomer, Meagan Holmes, Megan 
        Ohai, Kelley Finch, Briana Ovbude, Amy Massey, Kate Gong, and Monique 
        Gaxiola, and coaches Ali Khosroshahin, Harold Warren, Laura Janke, 
        Alicia Lloyd, and Rosa Anna Tantillo: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the Senate congratulates the University of Southern 
California women's soccer team for winning the 2007 National Collegiate 
Athletic Association Division I Championship.
                                 <all>
```
TERON D. HARRISON

,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,
Respondent. ___________________________/ IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FIL ED

CASE NO. 1D 14

- 3743

Opinion filed September 4, 2014.

Petition Alleging Ineffective Assistance of Appellate Counsel

-- Original Jurisdiction

.
Teron D. Harrison, pro se , Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee , for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The petition alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel is denied on the

merits.

PADOVANO, THOMAS, and ROBERTS, JJ.

, CONCUR.
October

Celebrate Health Education!

1

 UN AIDS Epidemic Update, December 2004

Raise awareness of this global crisis through World Wise Schools' 

lesson plans, featuring Volunteer stories on the HIV/AIDS epidemic 

from sub-Saharan Africa. In 2004, 39.4 million people died of AIDS 

worldwide, more than the entire population of California1.

AIDS Awareness Month

Check out:

o Letters from Peace Corps Volunteers in South Africa and Tanzania 

o HIV/AIDS resources
### IN THE UNI TED STATES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCUIT

No. 11-11219 Summary Calendar

DANIEL RANDOLPH, Jr. Plaintiff-Appellant
v. TEXACO INCORPORATION; CIGNA PROPERTY & CASUALTY COMPANY; DAVID K. LINE Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas

No: 6:11-CV-23

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS and ELROD, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Plaintiff Daniel Randolph is a state inmate acting pro se who filed suit
p u r s u ant to 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and a variety of other federal laws agains t th e defendants alleging that he was denied workman’s compensation, wrongfully discharg e d , s ubjected to racial discrimination, hostility and retaliation, and denied medical treatment. This federal action was file d after an adverse U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D June28 , 20 12 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Pursua nt to 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court hasd ete rm inedthat this op inion s houldnot * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t forth in 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 11-11219 Document: 00511903952 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/28/2012No. 11-11219

judgment rendered in Crockett County, Texas on his action for work e r’s compensation against his employer. After an independent review of the record,

we agree with the district court that although plaintiff couches his complaint in terms of a civil acti o n alleging violations of his constitutional rights under the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments, as w e ll as the Texas Constitution, pl aintiff is essentially attacking the judgment issued by the District Court of Crockett County, Texas, and affirmed by state a p p e l l ate courts. Under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, the federal district court correctly d e t e rmined that this collateral attack on a state court judgment was precluded. See Ro o k e r v. Fidelity Trust Co. , 263 U.S. 413, 415 (1923); District of Columbia Cour t of Appeals v. Feldman , 460 U.S. 462 , 482 (1983). See also Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic I

n d u s. Corp. , 544 U.S. 280 (2005). “[L]itigants may not obtain review of state court a c ti o n s by filing complaints about those actions in lower federal courts cast in the form of civil ri ght s suits.” Hale v. Harney , 786 F.2d 688, 691 (5th Cir. 1986); Liede v. State Bar of Texas , 18 F.3d 315, 317 (5th Cir. 1994); United States v. Shephard , 23 F.3d 923, 924 (5th Cir. 1994). Accordingly, we agree that the plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim and is frivolous. For the foregoing reasons and the reasons stated by the district court in it s O rder dated November 14, 2011, we AFFIRM the district court’s judgment.

2 Case: 11-11219 Document: 00511903952 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/28/2012
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

JUSTIN ANTHONY GIOVINAZZO

, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 18

- 671

[ May 31, 2018 ]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for

the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, St. Lucie County ; Gary L. Sweet , Judge;

L.T. Case No. 562014CF003058A

.

Justin Anthony Giovinazzo, Lawtey, pro se.

No appearance for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

G ERBER

, C.J., G ROSS and C ONNER

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
#### § 780.143 Practices on a farm not performed for the farmer.

The fact that a practice performed on a farm is not performed by or for the farmer is a strong indication that it is not performed in connection with the farming operations there conducted. Thus, where such an employer other than the farmer performs certain work on a farm solely for himself in furtherance of his own enterprise, the practice cannot ordinarily be regarded as performed in connection with farming operations conducted on the farm. For example, it is clear that the work of employees of a utility company in trimming and cutting trees for power and communications lines is part of a nonfarming enterprise outside the scope of agriculture. When a packer of vegetables or dehydrator of alfalfa buys the standing crop from the farmer, harvests it with his own crew of employees, and transports the harvested crop to his off-the-farm packing or dehydrating plant, the transporting and plant employees, who are not engaged in “primary” agriculture as are the harvesting employees (see *NLRB* v. *Olaa Sugar Co.,* 242 F. 2d 714), are clearly not agricultural employees. Such an employer cannot automatically become an agricultural employer by merely transferring the plant operations to the farm so as to meet the “on a farm” requirement. His employees will continue outside the scope of agriculture if the packing or dehydrating is not in reality done for the farmer. The question of for whom the practices are performed is one of fact. In determining the question, however, the fact that prior to the performance of the packing or dehydrating operations, the farmer has relinquished title and divested himself of further responsibility with respect to the product, is highly significant.
## Martin, Michael (OST)

_ From: 

### Sent: To: 

### Cc: Subject: Attachments: Everyone: Martin, Michael (OST) Wednesday, March 12, 2014 11:30 AM _Scott Wardwell (swardwell@presqueisleme.us); kreigc@co.clinton.ny.us Brad Madeira (manager@bhbairport.com); Schlemmer, Kevin (OST); Michael E. Zurlo (zurlom@co.clinton.ny.us); Jim A. Bennett Qbennett@presqueisleme.us); 'Rizzi, Patrick R. (patrick.rizzi@hoganlovells.com)' (patrick.rizzi@hoganlovells.com) Essential Air Service at Presque Isle and Plattsburgh PenAir Proposal for PQI and PBG - March 2014.pdf

Iwould like to update you on the Essential AirService (EAS) situation at Presque Isle, Maine, and Plattsburgh, NewYork, and give you an opportunityto offerany comments on the record before we submit a recommendation tothe Assistant Secretary forAviation and International Affairs. We issued Order2014-1-21 (January 31, 2014), requesting proposals from airlines interested in providing EAS for a newterm. In response to our request, PenAir, the incumbent, was the only airline to submit a proposal. I have attached PenAir's proposal foryour review and I expect itto be uploaded on www.regulations.gov sometime this afternoon. I request thatyou reviewthe proposal and submit any commentsyou may have as soon as possible, but no laterthan Wednesday, April 2. Please send your comments directlyto me via e-mail at michael.f.martin@dot.gov. Also, please forward this e-mail to all relevant partiesthat I have not included on this e-mail. Ifyou have any questions, feel free to contact me. Regards, Michael Martin United States Department ofTransportation Essential Air Service (EAS) and Small CommunityAirService Development Program (SCASDP) (202) 366-6494

1
Water in Africa Water in Africa Water in Africa

Free! Standards-based learning units for K–12 students

www.peacecorps.gov/waterinafrica

O ne day I went with my younger host sister, Gundo, to wash our clothes by the well. We had filled up

 three buckets of water (the normal amount for one load of laundry) and were scrubbing and soaping

 away. The sun was sweltering hot. It must have been over 110 degrees Fahrenheit. Suddenly, I became

restless and playful. I felt like starting a water fight, something I always loved to do as a kid, so I threw some

water at Gundo, giggling. She waved her hands in defense and told me to stop. At first, I thought she was just

playing along with me. But then I noticed that her voice was urgent and serious. It was then that I realized the

mistake I had made. I had wasted water. Peace Corps Volunteer, Senegal
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7443

JOHN D. STRASSINI, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus 2 UNNAMED CAPTAINS; SEVERAL SERGEANTS; D.A.R.T.; DETENTION OFFICERS, of Mecklenburg County Sheriff’s Department, Jail Division; CAPTAIN COLLINGS; CAPTAIN THOMAS, C. H. HARRISON, Sergeant, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States Dist rict Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (CA-00-238-3) Submitted: April 24, 2003 Decided: May 1, 2003 Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John D. Strassini, Appellant Pro Se. Scott Douglas MacLatchie, WOMBLE, CARLYLE, SANDRIDGE & RICE, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: John D. Strassini appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. SeeStrassini v. Two Unnamed Captains , No. CA-00-238-3 (W.D.N.C. Sept. 3, 2002). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                       5
<MULTIPLIER>                    1,000

       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                          13,857
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  315,608
<ALLOWANCES>                                     8,855
<INVENTORY>                                     37,734
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               401,771
<PP&E>                                       1,724,342
<DEPRECIATION>                                 859,337
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,290,998
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          294,422
<BONDS>                                        435,285
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        21,686
<OTHER-SE>                                     452,060
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,290,998
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,368,306
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,281,015
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              16,496
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 70,795
<INCOME-TAX>                                    28,134
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             42,661
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    42,661
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.97
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.78

        

</TABLE>
* 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. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED August 4, 2005 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-41016

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff - Appellee

v. ALEJANDRO GARCIA-RAMIREZ

Defendant - Appellant

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas

-------------------- ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The Supreme Court vacated the judgment in this case and remanded it to this Court to reconsider in light of United States v. Booker , 543 U.S. ___, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005). In supplemental briefing, Garcia-Ramirez argues that resentencing is required under Booker because the district court sentenced him under a mandatory sentencing scheme. After review of Garcia-Ramirez’s claim, we affirm the judgment of the district court.No. 03-41016 -2- Garcia-Ramirez raised this challenge to his sentence for the first time in his petition for writ of certiorari. Because he has not shown extraordinary circumstances to cure his failure to raise this issue in district court and on direct appeal, we need not consider his claim here. United States v. Ogle , ___ F.3d ___, No. 03-60833, 2005 WL 1503538, *1 (5th Cir. Jun 27, 2005) (holding that an argument not raised in appellant’s original brief is waived); United States v. Taylor , 409 F.3d 675, 676 (5th Cir. 2005). Even if we assume the existence of extraordinary circumstances, we may review Garcia-Ramirez’s claim only for plain error. United States v. Mares , 402 F.3d 511, 520 (5th Cir. 2005). Thus, Garcia-Ramirez must show that there is (1) error, (2) that is plain, and (3) that affects substantial rights. Id. In light of Booker , we agree that the use of a mandatorysentencing scheme is clear and obvious error. However, GarciaRamirez has failed to show that the error affected his substantial rights. He has made no showing that there is a reasonable probability that, but for the error, the district court would have imposed a lesser sentence. Id. at 522. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
#### KENTUCKY METAL PRODUCTS COMPANY, A CORPORATION v. UNITED STATES

[No. 44410.

Decided May 7, 1945]

*'Mr. Wm. E. Carey*for plaintiff.

*Mr. Fred B. Rhodes*was on the brief.

*Mr. Armistead B.*Rood, with whom was *Mr. Assistant Attorney General Francis M. Shea,*for defendant.

*779
      *Opinion*

*per Ouriam:*

The amount of increased cost for material claimed in this suit is $1,286.84 for the ten subcontracts ; the claimed increased costs on the Billings, Mont., and Jonesboro, Ark., subcontracts are $12.46 and $2.87, respectively. No increased costs prior to August 10, 1933, are claimed.

On the evidence submitted plaintiff has not shown what amount of increased cost, if any, was incurred for material as a result of enactment of the National Industrial Kecovery Act.

On the two subcontracts and the eight sub-subcontracts mentioned in the findings plaintiff incurred increased labor costs of $1,106.04 subsequent to August 10,1933 as a result of the enactment of the National Industrial Kecovery Act, but plaintiff filed claims for increased costs under the act of June 16, 1934, only with respect to its two subcontracts in connection with the buildings at Billings and Jonesboro, and the increased labor costs incurred under these subcontracts amounted to $13.36 and $0.30, respectively. Plaintiff says, however, that as to eight of the buildings in respect of which it did not file claims it was a sub-subcontractor *780or materialman and, as such, could not recover increased costs under the terms of the act of June 16, 1934. It is true that the Comptroller General had held on April 4, 1935, and July 21, 1936, as shown in *John B.*Kelly, *Inc.*v. *United*States, (May 2, 1938), 87 C. Cls. 271, 272, that sub-subcontractors or materialmen furnishing labor or material to a subcontractor were not entitled to claim and be allowed increased costs under the act of June 16, 1934 (48 Stat. 974), but sec. 1 of the act of June 25, 1938 (52 Stat. 1197), authorizing suit in this court, makes no exception in favor of anyone (except as to the period June 16 to August 10,1933) who had failed to file a claim within the time prescribed by sec. 4 of the act of June 16, 1934. See Report of Committee on the Judiciary, House Report #2609, 75th Cong., 3rd sess. The court can make no exception in plaintiff’s favor. Its only remedy for the admitted increased labor costs resulting from the enactment of the National Industrial Recovery Act of $1,092.39, in excess of the amount of $13.65 allowed herein, rests with Congress.

Judgment will be entered in favor of plaintiff for $13.65. It is so ordered.
Exhaust Nozzle from an 

airline’s Airbus A321

Elastomeric seal

Due to operating temperatures reaching 

above 500°F, the seal has lost its elasticity 

and the silicon has degraded to the point 

of becoming hard and brittle.

The Problem With Elastomeric Seals
Exhaust Nozzle

Elastomeric seal

Streaking is visible all along the seal due to fluid leaking

from it. The leakage is caused by the seal’s failure to 

provide a proper seal due to its silicon breakdown after

exposure to temperatures above 500°F.

The Problem With Elastomeric Seals
Exhaust Nozzle

Elastomeric seal

Streaking is visible all along the seal due to fluid leaking

from it. The leakage is caused by the seal’s failure to 

provide a proper seal due to its silicon breakdown after

exposure to temperatures above 500°F.

The Problem With Elastomeric Seals
```

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 158 (Tuesday, August 16, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 50810]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-20745]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Seventh Meeting: RTCA Special Committee 219: Attitude and Heading 
Reference System

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of RTCA Special Committee 219 meeting: Attitude and 
Heading Reference System.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a 
meeting of RTCA Special Committee 219: Attitude and Heading Reference 
System.

DATES: The meeting will be held September 20-22, 2011, from 9 a.m. to 5 
p.m., unless stated otherwise.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at RTCA, Inc., 1150 18th Street 
NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036. For hotel information please view 
the following Web site: http://www.rtca.org/directions/directions.asp#hotels.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: RTCA Secretariat, 1150 18th Street 
NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036, telephone (202) 833-9339, fax 
(202) 833-9434, Web site http://www.rtca.org.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., and Appendix 2), 
notice is hereby given for a Special Committee 219, Attitude and 
Heading Reference System.

Agenda

Tuesday September 20-Thursday, September 22, 2011

Tuesday, September 20, 2011

     Introductions and Administrative Items;
     Review of Meeting Agenda;
     Review and approval of summary from the sixth plenary 
meeting RTCA paper No. 123-11/SC219-012;
     Review minutes from last working group meeting;
     Review current state of draft MOPS document prior to 
moving into working group sessions;
     Plan working group sessions.

Wednesday, September 21, 2011

     Working group sessions.

Thursday, September 22, 2011

     Reassemble draft MOPS document after working group inputs;
     List changes for the pre-FRAC document;
     Consider and approve draft MOPS document for final review 
and comment (FRAC);
     Administrative items (meeting schedule, location, and next 
meeting agenda);
     Any other business;
     Adjourn.
    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space 
availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public 
may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present 
statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in 
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Members of the public may 
present a written statement to the committee at any time.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on August 9, 2011.
Robert L. Bostiga,
RTCA Advisory Committee.
[FR Doc. 2011-20745 Filed 8-15-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
```