alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Grafe, Jerome (DEP) 

Sent: 

To: 

Cc: 

Subject: 

From: Antonellis, John Oohn_antonellis@harvard.edu] 

Monday, September 24, 2012 11:50 AM 

Grafe, Jerome (DEP); Fichter, Katherine (DOT) 

marchi.family@verizon.net 

Blue to Red Connector 

Dear Mr. Grafe, and Ms. Fichter: 

I am writing to urge you to support the final design and construction of the Red-Blue Connector between Bowdoin and 

Charles Street stations in Boston. 

I have lived in East Boston for close to 12 years, commuting to Harvard Square 5 days a week, and making two changes 

from the Blue to the Green to the Red line. It is exhausting and very frustrating whenever there is a problem on any one 

of the three lines. 

Apart from the great personal benefit for myself and the hundreds of other blue to green to red commuters, supporting 

the connector makes sense for people who need to access any of the health care facilities located in Charles Circle. The 

Blue and Red lines are the only two lines which don't cross, and the MBTA has repeatedly pro-posed and then backed 

away from moving forward with this connector. It's time to honor promises that were made in the past. 

When the Silver Line was created I had some hope that it could potentially offer relief to East Boston residents, at least 

those of us living close to Airport Station, but the fact that it drives by the Airport T without stopping, makes it 

completely useless to East Boston Residents. Simply stopping at Airport T before and after the terminals would at least 

offer commuters to Dorchester and Quincy with a quicker alternative. 

Thank you for your time. 

Sincerely, 

John Antonellis 

John B. Antonellis, Lead Instructor 

Harvard Bridge Program 

Center for Workplace Development 

124 Mount Auburn Street, 3rd Floor 

Cambridge, MA 02138 

john antonellis(a>harvard.edu 

617-384-7627 Phone 

617-384-9445 Fax 

http://bridge.hhr.harvard.edu 

l
* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR .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. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-10840 Summary Calendar

JOHN E. SCOTT, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

TERRANCE A KING; TWELVE UNKNOWN DALLAS POLICE OFFICERS; THE CITY OF DALLAS, Defendants-Appellees.

--------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:97-CV-3062-R

--------------------- March 17, 1999 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * John E. Scott, Texas prisoner # 756455, seeks to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal following the district court’s denial of his IFP motion for an appeal of the dismissal of his civil rights complaint. Scott fails to challenge the reasons for the district court’s denial of the IFP motion, and he fails to show that his appeal has arguable merit and would be taken inNo. 98-10840 - 2 - good faith. See Brinkman v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner , 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987); Jackson v. Dallas Police Dep't , 811 F.2d 260, 261 (5th Cir. 1986); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). His motion to proceed IFP on appeal is DENIED, and his appeal is DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","provider_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov","author_name":"25005pwpadmin","author_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/author\/25005pwpadmin\/","title":"22-2004: BENNETT v. COMMERCE [ORDER], Nonprecedential - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"TdrkVu5CTL\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/11-15-2022-22-2004-bennett-v-commerce-order-22-2004-order-11-15-2022_2033459\/\">22-2004: BENNETT v. COMMERCE [ORDER], Nonprecedential<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/11-15-2022-22-2004-bennett-v-commerce-order-22-2004-order-11-15-2022_2033459\/embed\/#?secret=TdrkVu5CTL\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“22-2004: BENNETT v. COMMERCE [ORDER], Nonprecedential” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"TdrkVu5CTL\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","description":"ORDER Posted: BENNETT v. COMMERCE [ORDER](pdf) Appeal Number: 22-2004 Origin: MSPB Nonprecedential To see more opinions and orders, follow this link: Opinions and Orders."}
#### § 15.207 Conducted limits.

(a) Except as shown in [paragraphs (b)](/on/2024-09-20/title-47/section-15.207#p-15.207(b)) and [(c)](/on/2024-09-20/title-47/section-15.207#p-15.207(c)) of this section, for an intentional radiator that is designed to be connected to the public utility (AC) power line, the radio frequency voltage that is conducted back onto the AC power line on any frequency or frequencies, within the band 150 kHz to 30 MHz, shall not exceed the limits in the following table, as measured using a 50 μH/50 ohms line impedance stabilization network (LISN). Compliance with the provisions of this paragraph shall be based on the measurement of the radio frequency voltage between each power line and ground at the power terminal. The lower limit applies at the boundary between the frequency ranges.

| Frequency of emission (MHz) | Conducted limit (dBμV) | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Quasi-peak | Average |
| 0.15-0.5 | 66 to 56\* | 56 to 46\* | |
| 0.5-5 | 56 | 46 | |
| 5-30 | 60 | 50 | |
| | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| \*Decreases with the logarithm of the frequency. | | | |

(b) The limit shown in [paragraph (a)](/on/2024-09-20/title-47/section-15.207#p-15.207(a)) of this section shall not apply to carrier current systems operating as intentional radiators on frequencies below 30 MHz. In lieu thereof, these carrier current systems shall be subject to the following standards:

(1) For carrier current system containing their fundamental emission within the frequency band 535-1705 kHz and intended to be received using a standard AM broadcast receiver: no limit on conducted emissions.

(2) For all other carrier current systems: 1000 μV within the frequency band 535-1705 kHz, as measured using a 50 μH/50 ohms LISN.

(3) Carrier current systems operating below 30 MHz are also subject to the radiated emission limits in [§ 15.205](/on/2024-09-20/title-47/section-15.205), [§ 15.209](/on/2024-09-20/title-47/section-15.209), [§ 15.221](/on/2024-09-20/title-47/section-15.221), [§ 15.223](/on/2024-09-20/title-47/section-15.223), or [§ 15.227](/on/2024-09-20/title-47/section-15.227), as appropriate.

(c) Measurements to demonstrate compliance with the conducted limits are not required for devices which only employ battery power for operation and which do not operate from the AC power lines or contain provisions for operation while connected to the AC power lines. Devices that include, or make provisions for, the use of battery chargers which permit operating while charging, AC adapters or battery eliminators or that connect to the AC power lines indirectly, obtainig their power through another device which is connected to the AC power lines, shall be tested to demonstrate compliance with the conducted limits.

[[54 FR 17714](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/54-FR-17714), Apr. 25, 1989, as amended at [56 FR 373](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/56-FR-373), Jan. 4, 1991; [57 FR 33448](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/57-FR-33448), July 29, 1992; [58 FR 51249](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/58-FR-51249), Oct. 1, 1993; [67 FR 45671](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/67-FR-45671), July 10, 2002]
asset_ex101.htm

EXHIBIT 10.1

 

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 Change the Name of the Corporation; 

 

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:

 

From this day forth, the Corporation shall be known as:

 

MEGA BRIDGE INC. 

 

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
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION 

CASE NO. 22-81294-CIV-CANNON 

DONALD J. TRUMP, 

Plaintiff, 

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Defendant. 

 / 

 

CERTIFICATION OF ROBERTO FINZI 

 Roberto Finzi, Esquire, pursuant to Rule 4(b) of the Rules Governing the Admission, 

Practice, Peer Review, and Discipline of Attorneys, hereby certifies that: (1) I have studied the 

Local Rules of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida; (2) I am a member in 

good standing of the bars of the State of New York and the U.S. District Court for the Southern 

District of New York, as well as several other federal bars; and (3) I have not filed three or more 

motions for pro hac vice admission in this District within the last 365 days. 

 

 /s/ Roberto Finzi 

 Roberto Finzi 

Case 9:22-cv-81294-AMC Document 43-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/30/2022 Page 1 of 1
No. 11-9273.

#### Bruce *v.*Tucker, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
194A16

#### State v. Michael Antonio Bullock

1. State’s Motion for Temporary Stay (COA15-731)

1. Allowed 05/23/2016

2. State’s Petition for *Writ of Supersedeas*

*2.*
# Memorandum U.S.Department of Transportation Officeofthe Secretary ofTransportation Subject:

To: Notice ofCommun· DOT-OST-OST

communication. Washington National tions) Date:

ment rules (14 CFR Part 300), I am reporting the following On March 4, 2013, during a telephone conversation with former Representative Dan Boren ofOklahoma, Mr. Borenraised the subject ofthe Department's proceeding to allocate two slot exemptions for operations betweenRonald Reagan Washington National Airport (DCA) and airports within the 1,250-mile DCA perimeter. Mr. Boren expressed his support for US Airways applicationto provide service between DCA and Oklahoma City. I informed Mr. Borenthat, while I appreciated his interest in this case, I could not comment on its merits because the proceeding was under active considerationby the Department. Please place this memorandum in the appropriate Docket.

cc: Dan Boren
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 16 (Tuesday, January 25, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 3965]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-1686]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke; Amended 
Notice of Meeting

    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the 
Neurological Sciences and Disorders A, February 17, 2000, 7:30 p.m. to 
February 19, 2000, 5:00 p.m., Ramada Inn Rockville, 1775 Rockville 
Pike, Rockville, MD 20852 which was published in the Federal Register 
on January 11, 2000, 65 FR 1642.
    The meeting will be held February 17, 2000, 8:00 a.m. to February 
18, 2000, 5:00 p.m. The meeting will is closed to the public.

    Dated: January 18, 2000.
LaVerne Y. Stringfield,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Cmte. Policy.
[FR Doc. 00-1686 Filed 1-24-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
#### Nathan K. Griggs, appellant, v. William J. Harmon, appellee.

Filed May 1, 1895.

No. 6458.

Bill of Exceptions: Authority of Clerk to Sign: Review. In this case there are presented only questions of fact which cannot he examined upon what purports to be a bill of exceptions signed by the clerk of the district court wherein judgment was rendered, for the reason that there was no showing of the sickness or absence of the presiding judge from his district, and because the parties litigant did not agree upon such bill. Following *Scott v. Spencer,*42 N-eb., 632.

*22Appeal from the district court of Saunders county. Heard below before Bates, J.

*Samuel Rinaker, J. A. Smith*and *R. S. Bibb,*for appellant.

*Frick & Dolezal, contra.*

Ryan, C.

This was an action to quiet title brought by appellant in the district court of Saunders county. There is presented no question other than of fact. These questions cannot be considered upon what is submitted as a bill of exceptions signed by the clerk of said court, for the reason that it was not shown that the said bill was settled by the clerk because of the absence or sickness of the district judge, and there was no agreement upon the bill of exceptions. There was a stipulation in which, however, the last mentioned requirement does not appear. It was in the following language : “It is hereby agreed by and between the plaintiff and defendant in this action that a bill of exceptions in this case may be settled, allowed, and signed by the clerk of said district court, and that the same may be so signed and allowed without service or notice to defendant, except that in case of amendments proposed to the bill of exceptions as the same now stands, notice of any such amendments shall be given by plaintiff to defendant if any such amendments shall be desired by the plaintiff to be made. The bill to be settled and signed as aforesaid within the time provided by law.” Following the case of *Scott v. Spencer,*42 Neb., 632, we must ignore the act of the clerk in assuming to settle the bill of exceptions. Since the pleadings amply justified the relief granted the appellee, the judgment of the district court is

Affirmed.
# Comments on: 22-2004: BENNETT v. COMMERCE [ORDER], Nonprecedential
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway,

 Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

October 26, 2009 

p1019 

Order 

 

October 26, 2009 

139065 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 139065 

 COA: 278240 

Wayne CC: 06-011020-01 

KEHINDA WOFFORD, a/k/a 

KEHINDE TYRU WOFFORD, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 21, 2009 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
###### Editorial Note on [Part 1](/current/title-47/part-1?toc=1)

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 1 appear at [63 FR 54077](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/63-FR-54077), Oct. 8, 1998.

#### § 1.1305 Actions which normally will have a significant impact upon the environment, for which Environmental Impact Statements must be prepared.

Any Commission action deemed to have a significant effect upon the quality of the human environment requires the preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) and Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) (collectively referred to as EISs) (*see* [§§ 1.1314](/on/2024-09-20/title-47/section-1.1314), [1.1315](/on/2024-09-20/title-47/section-1.1315) and [1.1317](/on/2024-09-20/title-47/section-1.1317)). The Commission has reviewed representative actions and has found no common pattern which would enable it to specify actions that will thus automatically require EISs.

Note:

Our current application forms refer applicants to [§ 1.1305](/on/2024-09-20/title-47/section-1.1305) to determine if their proposals are such that the submission of environmental information is required (*see* [§ 1.1311](/on/2024-09-20/title-47/section-1.1311)). Until the application forms are revised to reflect our new environmental rules, applicants should refer to [§ 1.1307](/on/2024-09-20/title-47/section-1.1307). [Section 1.1307](/on/2024-09-20/title-47/section-1.1307) now delineates those actions for which applicants must submit environmental information.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Air Quality Planning & Standards

Resources

The links below provide more information on the proposed rule:

Carbon Pollution Standards http://www2.epa.gov/carbon-pollution-standards

Proposed Rule http://www2.epa.gov/carbon-pollution-standards/regulatory-actions

Submitting Comments

EPA will accept comments on the proposal until December 1, 2014. Comments, identified by Docket ID No. 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0682, may be submitted by one of the following methods:

 Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov/#!home follow the online instructions for 

submitting comments.

 Email: A-and-R-Docket@epa.gov - include docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2013-0602 in the subject 

line of the message.

 Fax: (202) 566-9744

 Mail: Send your comments to:

Environmental Protection Agency

EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), Mailcode 28221T

Attention Docket ID No. OAR–2013-0603

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20460

 Express mail, commercial delivery, hand delivery or courier: Such deliveries are only accepted 

during the docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries 

of boxed information. Deliver your comments to:

EPA Docket Center, Room 3334

EPA WJC West Building

1301 Constitution Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20004

The public comment period will end December 1, 2014. 

Proposed Rule Information

EPA Workshop for on Proposed Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Air Quality Planning & Standards

Points of Contact

For questions about the proposed rule

Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

Amy Vasu

Phone: (919) 541-3608

Email: vasu.amy@epa.gov

Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

Marguerite McLamb

Phone: (919) 541-7858

Email: mclamb.marguerite@epa.gov
#### § 60-1.30 Notification of agencies.

The Director shall ensure that the heads of all agencies are notified of any debarment taken against any contractor.

[62 FR 44191, Aug. 19, 1997]
46699.

#### SMITH et al. v. HOBBS et al.

(380 SE2d 53)

Decided March 15, 1989.

B. W. Smith, *pro se.*

Betty L. Smith, *pro se.*

*Ken Askew,*for appellees.

Per curiam.

The appellants, B. W. and Betty L. Smith, petitioned the Superior Court of Harris County to obtain a clear, marketable title to property pursuant to OCGA § 23-3-60. A special master was appointed and his findings were adopted by the superior court. The appellants filed a motion to set aside the findings of the special master and/or for a rehearing. That motion was denied on June 28, 1988. The appellants filed a notice of appeal on December 19, 1988. The appellees filed a motion to dismiss the appeal and the appeal was dismissed on January 30, 1989. The trial judge found that there was no justifiable reason for the delay in filing the notice of appeal. The appellants now seek to appeal the order dismissing their late notice of appeal.

In a recent case that we transferred to the Court of Appeals we stated:

> Only if the court’s dismissal of the notice of appeal ... is overturned . . . could any question dealing with [title to land] be brought to an appellate court. It is not what is in the complaint before the trial court that determines this Court’s jurisdiction, but the *issues on appeal.*

*Hatfield v. Great American Mgt. & Investment,*258 Ga. 640 (373 SE2d 367) (1988).

*Case transferred.*

*All the Justices concur, except Gregory, J., who concurs in the judgment only.*
I

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4421

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide that tax-exempt

interest shall not be taken into account in determining the amount

of social security benefits included in gross income.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 12, 1994

Mr. SOLOMON (for himself, Mr. STUMP, Mr. BUNNING, Mr. LEVY, Mr. KYL,

and Mr. SENSENBRENNER), introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide

that tax-exempt interest shall not be taken into account

in determining the amount of social security benefits

included in gross income.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. TAX-EXEMPT INTEREST NOT TAKEN INTO AC4 COUNT IN DETERMINING TAXATION OF SO5 CIAL SECURITY BENEFITS.

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (2) of section 86(b) of

7 the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to social se8 curity and tier 1 railroad retirement benefits) is amended
2

•HR 4421 IH

1 by striking ‘‘gross income—’’ and all that follows and in2 serting ‘‘gross income determined without regard to this

3 section and sections 135, 911, 931, and 933.’’.

4 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by

5 subsection (a) shall apply to taxable years beginning after

6 the date of the enactment of this Act.

Æ
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 17

- 3566

_____________________________
M ICHAEL T. F REDRICK , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Wakulla County

. John C. Cooper , Judge

. August 8, 2018

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.
W ETHERELL , B ILBREY , and M.K. T HOMAS , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________

Michael T. Fredrick, pro se
, Appellant.2 Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Sharon Traxler, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.