alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1
 
                                    AIS LOGO
 
                              CONSENT OF APPRAISER
 
     We consent to the use of our reports included herein and to the references
to our firm in the Airplanes Limited and Airplanes U.S. Trust Report on Form
10-K for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1998.
 
Dated: June 29, 1998
 
                                          Aircraft Information Services Inc.
 
                                          By: /s/ JOHN D. MCNICOL
 
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            John D. McNicol
                                            Vice President -- Appraisals &
                                              Forecasts
 
      Headquarters, 26072 Merit Circle, Suite 183, Laguna Hills, CA 92653
         TEL: 714-582-8888  FAX: 714-582-8887  E-MAIL: AISINews@aol.com
§ 301-70.506 How do we define actual cost and constructive cost when an employee interrupts a travel assignment because of an incapacitating illness or injury? ( a ) Actual cost of travel will be the transportation expenses incurred and en route per diem for the travel as actually performed from the point of interruption to the alternate location and from the alternate location to the TDY assignment. No per diem is allowed for time spent at the alternate location if confined to a medical facility.
( b ) Constructive cost is the sum of travel and transportation expenses the employee would reasonably have incurred for round-trip travel between the official station and the alternate location plus per diem calculated for the appropriate en route travel time. The calculation will necessarily involve assumptions. Examples of related expenses that could be considered constructive costs include, but are not limited to, taxi and TNC fares, baggage fees, rental car costs, tolls, ferry fees, and parking charges.
[FTR Amdt. 70, 63 FR 15971, Apr. 1, 1998. Redesignated by FTR Amdt. 108, 67 FR 57967, Sept. 13, 2002, as amended at 88 FR 2845, Jan. 18, 2023]
No. 11-9042.

#### Owens *v.*Bush et al.

C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

**COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,**

**Respondent**

**v.**

**STEPHEN FREDERICK BAKER, JR.,**

**Petitioner :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 984 MAL 2015** 

**Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court** 

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW **, this 6th day of April, 2016, the Petition for Allo wance of Appeal is** 

DENIED

**.**

**Justice Wecht did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.**
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
JOHN LEWIS PRATT, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. ) G.H. JACKSON, ) ) Defendant. )
MEMORANDUM OPINION 

# FILED NOV 302009 Clerk, U.S. District and Bankruptcy Courts 

# 09 2270

This matter comes before the Court upon review ofplaintiffspro se complaint and application for leave to proceed informapauperis. The application will be granted but the complaint will be dismissed. "Three inter-relatedjudicial doctrines

- standing, mootness, and ripeness

- ensure that federal courts assertjurisdiction only over 'Cases' and 'Controversies.'" Worth v. Jackson, 451 F.3d 854,855 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (quoting U.S. Const. art. III, § 2). A party has standing ifhis claims "spring from an 'injuryin fact'

- an invasion ofa legallyprotected interest that is 'concrete and particularized,' 'actual or imminent' and 'fairly traceable' to the challenged act of the defendant, and likely to be redressed by a favorable decision in the federal court." Navegar, Inc. v. United States, 103 F.3d 994, 998 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (quotingLujan v. Defenders ofWildlife, 504 U.S. 555,560-61 (1992)). Plaintiffappears to bring this action on behalfofEddie D. Pratt, who allegedly was arrested by a police officer in Candor, North Carolina. He is a lay person who is not qualified to appear in this Court on behalfofanother person. See 28 U.S.c. 

### § 1654; Georgiades v. Martin-Trigona, 729 F.2d 831,834 (D.C. Cir. 1984). Even though plaintiffmay representhimselfas apro se litigant, it does not appear that he has sustained an actual injury caused bythe named defendant's actions. Accordingly, the Court will dismiss this action without prejudice for lack ofstanding. An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion will be issued separately on this
same date.

# rk±~.~ United States District Judge Date: \ \

# I**\~**

# \61
022P16

#### State v. Jeremy Lynn Benfield

Defs *Pro Se*Motion for PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 (COAOO-1236)

Denied

Hudson, J.,

recused
asset_ex103.htm

EXHIBIT 10.3

 

RESOLUTION OF THE SHAREHOLDERS

 

OF

 

ASSET SOLUTIONS INC.

 

The following is a true copy of the resolution duly adopted by the Majority of the Shareholders of the Corporation at a special meeting, notice to this meeting having been waived, held this 25th day of January, 2017; 

 

WHEREAS there has been presented to and considered by this meeting a Motion to INCREASE our Authorized Stock;

 

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the majority of shareholders having considered this matter, and having opened the floor to all those who voice a preference in the issue and pursuant to NRS 78.320, have overwhelmingly decided and RESOLVED that:

 

The Authorized Stock of the Corporation be increased to 1,000,000,000 (One Billion). 

  

The Secretary of the Corporation shall so effectuate this action with the Secretary of State of Nevada. 

 

Said Motion is hereby passed and the corporate books, records and the Company shall file this Resolution in the corporate records. 

 

Dated: January 25th, 2017

_____________________

Young Hua Song, 

on behalf of First Legacy Management LLC., Majority Shareholders
#### § 302-17.0 General.

Use of the pronouns “I,” “you,” and their variants throughout this part refer to the employee, unless otherwise noted.
§ 301-11.23 Are there any other circumstances when my agency may reimburse me to return home or to my official station for non-workdays during a TDY assignment? Your agency may authorize per diem or actual expense and round-trip transportation expenses for periodic return travel on non-workdays to your home or official station under the following circumstances: ( a ) The agency requires you to return to your official station to perform official business; or
( b ) The agency will realize a substantial cost savings by returning you home; or
( c ) Periodic return travel home is justified incident to an extended TDY assignment.
United States Court of Appeals

For the First Circuit

No. 08-2056

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Appellee,

v.

JASON GERHARD,

Defendant, Appellant,

No. 08-2300

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Appellee,

v.

CIRINO GONZALEZ,

Defendant, Appellant,

No. 08-2450

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Appellee,

v.

DANIEL RILEY,

Defendant, Appellant.

ERRATA SHEET

The opinion of this Court issued on July 30, 2010, is
amended as follows:

On page 9, line 20, "riles" is changed to "rifles".

On page 11, line 7, "2009" is changed to "2007".
From: Cogliano, Gerain

Sent: Monday, February 22, 2016 1 :24 PM

To: Jones, Danielle <Danielle_Y_Jones@omb.eop.gov> Subject: EO 12866 RMP NPRM: SBA concern

-- 3 sentences for a potential preamble insert Importance: High

Hi Danielle,

Here is the revised language:

Proposed §§ 68.59(c)(2) and 68.80(c)(2), if finalized, would include requirements for the retention of reports and records by the third

- party auditors. Proposed §§ 68.59(c)(3) and 68.80(c)(3), if finalized, would require the audit report to be submitted to the impl ementing agency at the same time, or before, it is provided it to the owner or operator. Finally, EPA is proposing in §§ 68.59(c)(4) and 68.80(c)(4) that the audit report and related records cannot be claimed as attorney

- client communications or as

attorne y work products even if the auditors are themselves, or are managed by or report to, attorneys. With respect to the attorney work product privilege, the audit report and related records are produced to document compliance rather than in anticipation of lit igation, just like a monitoring report required by an air emission rule would not be produced in anticipation of litigation. With respect to the attorney

client communication privilege, the third party auditor is arms

- length and independent of the station ary source being audited. The auditor lacks an attorney

- client relationship with counsel for the audited entity. Therefore, neither the audit report nor the records related to the audit report, provided to the third party auditor are attorney

- client priv ileged (including documents originally prepared with assistance or under the direction of the audited source’s attorney). EPA seeks comment on these proposed requirements including any legal concerns that may result from the provision that limits
attorney

- related privileges.

Gerain
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1998
<CASH>                                             503
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     503
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           216328
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        285165
<OTHER-SE>                                    (500990)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       503
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 14420
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (14420)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (14420)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (0.007)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.007)
        

</TABLE>
Motion Granted; Order filed, January 8, 2019.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 18

- 00160

- CV

____________ J. PAUL CAVER , Appellant

V.

CYNTHIA CLAYTON , Appellee

On Appeal from the 80th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2014

- 65040



### ORDER

The reporter’s record in this case was originally due May 7, 2018. See Tex. R. App. P. 35.1. On June 21, 2018 this court abated the appeal and ordered the court reporter to file the record. On November 5, 2018 the court reporter filed an inaccurate record, which was refused by this court. On December 11, 2018 appellant filed a motion to compel the court reporter to file an accurate reporter’s record. The
record has not been filed with the court. Because th e reporter’s record has not been filed timely, we grant appellant’s motion and issue the following order.We order Michelle Tucker, the official court reporter, to file the corrected

record in this appeal within 15 days of the date of this order

. PER CU RIAM
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-82,784-01

EX PARTE TRAVIS JAMES GUILLORY, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 11-11914-A IN THE CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT

FROM JEFFERSON COUNTY 

Per curiam.

O R D E R

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte

Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of the offense of

possession of a controlled substance as a habitual felony offender and sentenced to imprisonment

for twenty-five years. The Ninth Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction. Guillory v. State, No.

09-12-00574-CR (Tex. App— Beaumont June 20, 2013)(not designated for publication). 

On January 22, 2015, a timely order designating issues was signed by the trial court. The

habeas record has been forwarded to this Court prematurely. We remand this application to the

Criminal District Court of Jefferson County to allow the trial judge to complete an evidentiary
investigation, obtain the ordered affidavits, and enter findings of fact and conclusions of law.

This application will be held in abeyance until the trial court has resolved the fact issues. The

issues shall be resolved within 90 days of this order. A supplemental transcript containing all

affidavits and interrogatories or the transcription of the court reporter’s notes from any hearing or

deposition, along with the trial court’s supplemental findings of fact and conclusions of law, shall

be forwarded to this Court within 120 days of the date of this order. Any extensions of time shall

be obtained from this Court. 

Filed: March 4, 2015

Do not publish
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A17E0035. MAYS v. THE STATE.

The appellant’s motion for out-of-time application for discretionary appeal

from the denial of a motion to set aside a judgment is hereby DENIED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

February 14, 2017

02/14/2017
§ 301-74.1 What policies must we follow in planning a conference? When planning a conference, you must: ( a ) Minimize all conference costs, including administrative costs, conference attendees' travel costs, and conference attendees' time costs;
( b ) Maximize the use of Government-owned or Government provided conference facilities as much as possible;
( c ) Identify opportunities to reduce costs in selecting a particular conference location and facility (e.g., through the availability of lower rates during the off-season at a site with seasonal rates); and
( d ) Ensure that the conference planner or designee does not retain for personal use any promotional benefits or materials received from a travel service provider as a result of booking the conference (*see* §§ 301-53.2 and 301-53.3 of this chapter); and
( e ) Develop and establish internal policies to ensure these standards are met.
[FTR Amdt. 89, 65 FR 1327, Jan. 10, 2000, as amended by FTR Amdt. 2003-04, 68 FR 27937, May 22, 2003]
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane l unani m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T J UA N C AR L OS B R I B I E S C A- AL C AL A, P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 10- 70366 A ge nc yN o. A 070- 743- 774 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

an O r de rof

the B o ar do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d A ugus t11, 2011 ** B e f o r e : T HO MAS , S I L VE R MAN, an dC L I F T ON , C i rcu i tJu d g es. Juan C ar l os B ribi es ca -A l ca l a, a nat i ve and ci t i ze n o f M exi co, pet i t i on s pro s e f o rr e v ie w o f

th e B o ar do f

I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls ’ ( “B I A ” ) o r d e rd e n y in g h is m ot i on t o rec on si der. O ur j uri sdi ct i on i s gov erned b y 8 U . S . C . § 1 25 2. W e r evi ew f o rab u s e o f

d is c r e tio n th e d e n ia l o f am o tio n to r e c o n s id e r . Moh am m ed v.



# FI LED AU G 15 2011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS10- 70366 2 G on zales , 4 0 0 F .3 d7 8 5 , 7 9 1 - 9 2 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) . W e d e n yin p art an dd is m is s in p artth e p e t i t i o n f

o rr e v i e w. In hi s openi ng bri ef

, B ribi es ca -A l ca l a f

ai l s t o add re ss , and there by w ai ves any c hal l enge t o, the B IA ’ s deni alof hi s m ot i on t o rec on si der f or fa i l ure t o i dent i fy an ye rr o ro f

law o rf a c t in its p r io rd e c is io n d e n y in g h is m o tio n to r e o p e n . See M a r t i n ez - Se rra n o v . I

NS , 94 F . 3d 12 56 , 12 59 -60 (9th C i r. 19 96 ) ( ho l di ng i ss ues w h ic h ar e n o t s p e c if

ic a llyr a is e dan dar g u e din ap arty ’s o p e n in g b r ie f ar e w a iv e d ) . W e l a c k j ur i s di c t i on t o r e vi e w P e t i t i one r ’ s c ont e nt i on tha tthe f i l i ng de a dl i ne f orhi s m ot i on s houl d ha ve be e n e qui t abl yt ol l e d on a c c ountof the a c t i ons or i nact i on s of the D epartm entof H om el and S ec uri ty bec ause B ribi es ca -A l ca l a f ai l ed t o r a i s e i tb e f

o r e th e B I A. See B a rr o n v . A s h c r o ft , 35 8 F . 3d 67 4, 67 7-78 (9th C i r. 2 0 0 4 ) ( g e n e r a llyr e q u ir in g e x h au s tio n o f c la im s b e f

o r e th e a g e n c y ) . I n l i ghtof

ourdi s pos i t i on, w e ne e d notr e a c h B r i bi e s c a - A l c a l a ’ s r e m a i ni ng co n t en t i o n s. P E T IT IO N F O R R E V IE W D E N IE D i n p art; D IS M IS S E D i n p art.
file:///J|/INITENG/P09%20cases/p090071.eng.txt

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT CBI: 

PMN: 09-0071

Focus Ready Draft 12/4/2008

ENGINEER: Macek \ AH

PV (kg/yr): 

SUBMITTER: 

USE: 

OTHER USES: 

MSDS: Label: No

TLV/PEL:

CRSS :

Chemical Name: 

S-H20: 0.0002 g/L @

VP: 4.5E-5 torr @

MW: 382.00 %<500 %<1000

file:///J|/INITENG/P09%20cases/p090071.eng.txt (1 of 7) [3/15/2010 2:05:06 PM]
file:///J|/INITENG/P09%20cases/p090071.eng.txt

ws = 2E-5 mg/L, log P = 11.03.

Consumer Use: No

SAT (concerns) (11/25/2008):

Migration to groundwater: Negligible

PBT rating: P2B1T1

Health: 2 Not Required

Eco: 3 Water (All releases to water with a CC =2 ppb)

OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE RATING: NR

NOTES & KEY ASSUMPTIONS:

Generated by the 06/07/2005 version of ChemSTEER. 

POLLUTION PREVENTION CONSIDERATIONS:

None.

EXPOSURE-BASED REVIEW: No

file:///J|/INITENG/P09%20cases/p090071.eng.txt (2 of 7) [3/15/2010 2:05:06 PM]
file:///J|/INITENG/P09%20cases/p090071.eng.txt

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT CBI: 

PMN: 09-0071

file:///J|/INITENG/P09%20cases/p090071.eng.txt (3 of 7) [3/15/2010 2:05:06 PM]
file:///J|/INITENG/P09%20cases/p090071.eng.txt

file:///J|/INITENG/P09%20cases/p090071.eng.txt (4 of 7) [3/15/2010 2:05:06 PM]
file:///J|/INITENG/P09%20cases/p090071.eng.txt

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT CBI: 

PMN: 09-0071

file:///J|/INITENG/P09%20cases/p090071.eng.txt (5 of 7) [3/15/2010 2:05:06 PM]
file:///J|/INITENG/P09%20cases/p090071.eng.txt

file:///J|/INITENG/P09%20cases/p090071.eng.txt (6 of 7) [3/15/2010 2:05:06 PM]
file:///J|/INITENG/P09%20cases/p090071.eng.txt

CBI: 

MEMORANDUM of CBI TELEPHONE CONVERSATION

CALL BY: Ariel Hou

Organization: ERG

CALL TO: ha

Organization: 

Date: 11/26/2008

Time: 3PM

Phone: 

Concerning what TSCA CBI?

PMN: 09-0071

file:///J|/INITENG/P09%20cases/p090071.eng.txt (7 of 7) [3/15/2010 2:05:06 PM]
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4262 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4262

To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to require that recipients of 
       Pell Grants be citizens or nationals of the United States.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 20, 1994

    Mr. Darden (for himself, Mr. Deal, and Mr. Johnson of Georgia) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                          Education and Labor

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to require that recipients of 
       Pell Grants be citizens or nationals of the United States.

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

SECTION 1. AMENDMENT TO THE HIGHER EDUCATION ACT OF 1965.

    Section 401(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
1070a(a)) is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``(defined in accordance 
        with section 484)''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
    ``(4) For the purposes of this section, the term `eligible student' 
means a student who--
            ``(A) meets the requirements of paragraphs (1) through (4) 
        of section 484(a); and
            ``(B) is a citizen or national of the United States.''.

                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-01-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-03-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-01-1998
<CASH>                                       3,631,000
<SECURITIES>                                17,678,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,435,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                 20,948,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            44,561,000
<PP&E>                                       4,679,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              (1,752,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              47,931,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        9,536,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       101,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  37,716,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                47,931,000
<SALES>                                    112,795,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           112,795,000
<CGS>                                       86,513,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              103,188,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              29,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             10,744,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                 4,189,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          6,383,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 6,383,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.63<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.63<F2>
<FN>
<F1>This information has been proposed in accordance with SFAS No. 128. Basic
EPS and Diluted EPS have been entered in the place of Primary and Diluted EPS.
<F2>For each of the three fiscal years in the period ended February 1, 1998,
there was no change from the primary EPS previously presented and the Basic
and Diluted EPS proposed in accordance with SFAS No. 128.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
# Comments on: 22-1365: KELLY v. US [OPINION], Precedential