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

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4331

To terminate the C–17 aircraft program after fiscal year 1995 and provide

for a program to meet the remaining strategic airlift requirements of

the Department of Defense with nondevelopmental aircraft.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 3, 1994

Ms. FURSE introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee

on Armed Services

A BILL

To terminate the C–17 aircraft program after fiscal year

1995 and provide for a program to meet the remaining

strategic airlift requirements of the Department of Defense with nondevelopmental aircraft.

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

3 SECTION 1. TERMINATION OF C–17 STRATEGIC AIRLIFT

4 PROGRAM.

5 (a) PROGRAM TERMINATION.—The Secretary of De6 fense shall terminate the C–17 aircraft acquisition pro7 gram with those aircraft for which funds are appropriated

8 for fiscal year 1995. No funds appropriated to the Depart-
2

•HR 4331 IH

1 ment of Defense for fiscal year 1995 may be obligated for

2 procurement of long-lead items for C–17 aircraft, and no

3 funds appropriated to the Department of Defense for a

4 fiscal year after fiscal year 1995 may be obligated for pro5 curement of C–17 aircraft or for procurement of long-lead

6 items for such aircraft.

7 (b) ALTERNATIVE STRATEGIC AIRLIFT PROGRAM.—

8 (1) The Secretary shall develop a program to meet the

9 remaining strategic airlift requirements of the Air Force

10 through acquisition of nondevelopmental airlift aircraft.

11 (2) For purposes of paragraph (1), the remaining

12 strategic airlift requirements of the Air Force are those

13 requirements that before the date of the enactment of this

14 Act were programmed to be met through the acquisition

15 of C–17 aircraft using funds appropriated for a fiscal year

16 after fiscal year 1995.

17 (3) Not later than 90 days after the date of the enact18 ment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to Congress

19 a report on the program developed under paragraph (1).

20 The report shall describe the proposed scope, pace, and

21 cost of the acquisition of nondevelopmental airlift aircraft

22 under that program.

Æ
{"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":"2020-1673: Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Biogen MA Inc. - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"WCfmPuMflI\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/12-09-2020-2020-1673-mylan-pharmaceuticals-inc-v-biogen-ma-inc-audio-uploaded\/\">2020-1673: Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Biogen MA Inc.<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/12-09-2020-2020-1673-mylan-pharmaceuticals-inc-v-biogen-ma-inc-audio-uploaded\/embed\/#?secret=WCfmPuMflI\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“2020-1673: Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Biogen MA Inc.” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"WCfmPuMflI\" 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":"Oral argument audio posted: Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Biogen MA Inc. (mp3) Appeal Number: 2020-1673 To listen to more oral argument recordings, follow this link: Listen To Oral Arguments."}
BF

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 22-0496

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

MERLE RAYMOND BRANSTETTER,

Defendant and Appellant.

GRANT OF EXTENSION

Upon consideration of Appellee’s motion for a 30-day extension of time, 

and good cause appearing therefor, Appellee is granted an extension of time to 

and including October 26, 2023, within which to prepare, file, and serve its 

response brief.

Electronically signed by:

Bowen Greenwood

Clerk of the Supreme Court

September 25 2023

09/25/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0496
401 A.2d 820

#### COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Donald Thomas WILLIAMS, Appellant.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

Submitted June 12, 1978.

Decided April 12, 1979.

John W. Packel, Assistant Public Defender, Chief, Appeals Division, Philadelphia, for appellant.

Robert B. Lawler, Assistant District Attorney, Chief, Appeals Div., Philadelphia, for Commonwealth, appellee.

*101Before JACOBS, President Judge, and HOFFMAN, CER-CONE, PRICE, VAN der VOORT, SPAETH and HESTER, JJ.

VAN der VOORT, Judge:

Appellant Donald Thomas Williams was arrested on June 7,1975, charged with robbery, conspiracy, simple assault and theft. Appellant was found guilty on October 24, 1975, after a trial before a judge sitting without a jury. Post-trial motions were filed and denied, and, on December 9, 1975, sentence of three years probation was imposed. While on probation, appellant was again arrested (on February 12, 1977) for robbery and assault. The lower court held a probation revocation hearing (Gagnon I) on March 1, 1977, and ordered that a second hearing be held as soon as appellant was tried on the new charges. Appellant was found guilty of the new charges on May 11, 1977, and was sentenced on those charges on July 13,1977, to serve concurrent terms of eleven and one-half months imprisonment and five years probation. A second probation revocation hearing was held on August 18, 1977, at which time appellant’s probation was revoked and he was sentenced to a term of two and one-half to five years imprisonment, to begin at the expiration of the sentence on the new conviction. Appellant appealed to our Court, arguing that his probation revocation hearing had not been held as speedily as possible, as is required by Pa.Rule of Criminal Procedure 1409.

Pa.Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925(b) provides that if the lower court is uncertain as to the basis for an appeal, it may direct the appellant to file of record in the lower court and serve on the trial judge a concise statement of the matters complained of on the appeal. The rule further provides that a failure to comply with such direction may be considered by the appellate court as a waiver of all objections to the order, ruling, or other matters complained of. In the case before us, according to the lower court’s opinion, the court twice requested (on September 21 and October 20, 1977) that defense counsel file a statement of matters com*102plained of in the appeal. No response was made to either request, and the lower court therefore declared itself unable to discuss any specific objections. In accordance with the provisions of Rule 1925(b), we find that appellant has waived his issue by failing to comply with the lower court’s request.

Affirmed.

JACOBS, former President Judge, and HOFFMAN, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.
#### STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. DAMARIO MONTREAL COXTON

From Mecklenburg County

No. 121A16

ORDER

This matter is before this Court on defendant’s Notice of Appeal based on a Constitutional Question, seeking review of the Court of Appeals’ opinion dismissing defendant’s appeal and denying defendant’s petition for writ of *certiorari*filed before that court. The State’s Motion to Dismiss Appeal is ALLOWED. This Court on its own motion, however, vacates the denial of defendant’s petition writ of *certiorari*at the Court of Appeals and remands this case to the Court of Appeals with directions to allow defendant’s petition for writ of *certiorari*as filed before that court.

By Order of this Court, this 9th day of June, 2016.

s/Ervin. J.

For the Court

WITNESS my hand and the seal of the Supreme Court of North Carolina, this the 10th day of June, 2016.

J. BRYAN BOYD Clerk, Supreme Court of North Carolina

s/M.C. Hackney Assistant Clerk, Supreme Court of North Carolina
{"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":"18-1659: IN RE: CONRAD [OPINION], Nonprecedential - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"jl4nSUxWYQ\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/3-22-2019-18-1659-in-re-conrad-opinion-nonprecedential-18-1659-opinion-3-22-2019\/\">18-1659: IN RE: CONRAD [OPINION], Nonprecedential<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/3-22-2019-18-1659-in-re-conrad-opinion-nonprecedential-18-1659-opinion-3-22-2019\/embed\/#?secret=jl4nSUxWYQ\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“18-1659: IN RE: CONRAD [OPINION], Nonprecedential” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"jl4nSUxWYQ\" 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":"Opinions\/Orders posted: IN RE: CONRAD [OPINION](pdf) Appeal Number: 18-1659 Origin: PTO Nonprecedential To see more opinions and orders, follow this link: Opinions and Orders."}
No. 11-9281.

#### In re Doyle.

See this Court’s Rule 39.8.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis*denied, and petition for writ of mandamus dismissed.
<PAGE>   1
 
                                                                      EXHIBIT 12
                 COMPUTATION OF DEFICIENCY OF COMBINED EARNINGS
                           TO COMBINED FIXED CHARGES
 
     The following computations of the deficiency of combined earnings to
combined fixed charges has been based upon the audited Financial Statements of
Airplanes Limited and Airplanes U.S. Trust for the five year period ended March
31, 1998 included in this Form 10-K.
 
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                YEAR ENDED MARCH 31,
                                                        ------------------------------------
                                                        1994    1995    1996    1997    1998
                                                        ----    ----    ----    ----    ----
                                                                    ($ MILLIONS)
<S>                                                     <C>     <C>     <C>     <C>     <C>
Operating loss before income tax....................     (74)   (125)    (69)   (140)   (153)
Add: interest expense...............................     258     357     376     400     427
                                                        ----    ----    ----    ----    ----
EARNINGS............................................     184     232     307     260     274
                                                        ----    ----    ----    ----    ----
FIXED CHARGES:
Interest expense....................................     258     357     376     400     427
                                                        ----    ----    ----    ----    ----
DEFICIT OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES................     (74)   (125)    (69)   (140)   (153)
                                                        ====    ====    ====    ====    ====
</TABLE>
 
                                        2
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4443 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4443

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of 
   documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment in the 
              coastwise trade for the vessel WOLF GANG II.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 17, 1994

 Mrs. Unsoeld introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
               Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of 
   documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment in the 
              coastwise trade for the vessel WOLF GANG II.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That notwithstanding 
section 27 of the Merchant Marine Act, 1920 (46 App. U.S.C. 883), the 
Act of June 19, 1886 (46 App. U.S.C. 289), and section 12106 of title 
46, United States Code, the Secretary of Transportation may issue a 
certificate of documentation with appropriate endorsement for 
employment in the coastwise trade for the vessel WOLF GANG II (United 
States official number 984934).

                                 <all>
```
{"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":"Briefs & Appendices - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"9O9EfIB9HS\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/home\/case-information\/case-filings\/briefs-appendices\/\">Briefs & Appendices<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/home\/case-information\/case-filings\/briefs-appendices\/embed\/#?secret=9O9EfIB9HS\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Briefs & Appendices” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"9O9EfIB9HS\" 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":"Filing Briefs and Appendices Briefs and appendices are filed electronically through CM\/ECF using the event\u00a0Brief\/Appendix or Joinder as described in the court\u2019s\u00a0Electronic Filing Procedures (pdf).\u00a0 Once a brief or appendix is filed, the Clerk\u2019s Office will review the submission for compliance with the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and the Federal Circuit Rules.\u00a0 Until such […]"}
No. 10-11013.

#### Makdessi *v.*Watson, Warden.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                          35,296
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,480,081
<ALLOWANCES>                                    10,000
<INVENTORY>                                  2,677,281
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,449,697
<PP&E>                                       1,655,143
<DEPRECIATION>                                 798,925
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,324,027
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,765,281
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     1,615,638
<OTHER-SE>                                     798,550
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,324,027
<SALES>                                     12,202,701
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            12,202,701
<CGS>                                        9,081,652
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                9,081,652
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,555,657
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              92,473
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                558,841
<INCOME-TAX>                                   207,675
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   351,166
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.15
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.14


</TABLE>
**Exhibit 31(f)**

 

**EXELON CORPORATION**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

 

I, Jonathan W. Thayer, certify that:

 

1.                                      I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Constellation Energy Group, Inc.; and

 

2.                                      Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.

 

 
| Date:   April 27,   2012           |   |
|--------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                                   |   |
| /s/   JONATHAN W. THAYER                               |   |
| Executive   Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |   |

 

----
§ 60-741.63 Violations of conciliation agreements. ( a ) When OFCCP believes that a conciliation agreement has been violated, the following procedures are applicable: ( 1 ) A written notice shall be sent to the contractor setting forth the violation alleged and summarizing the supporting evidence. The contractor shall have 15 days from receipt of the notice to respond, except in those cases in which OFCCP asserts that such a delay would result in irreparable injury to the employment rights of affected employees or applicants.
( 2 ) During the 15-day period the contractor may demonstrate in writing that it has not violated its commitments.
( b ) In those cases in which OFCCP asserts that a delay would result in irreparable injury to the employment rights of affected employees or applicants, enforcement proceedings may be initiated immediately without proceeding through any other requirement contained in this chapter.
( c ) In any proceedings involving an alleged violation of a conciliation agreement, OFCCP may seek enforcement of the agreement itself and shall not be required to present proof of the underlying violations resolved by the agreement.
# Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed March 16, 2022. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________ No. 3D21-1736 Lower Tribunal No. 20-15930

________________ 

### Beth Martin , Appellant,
vs. 

### Daniel Martin , Appellee.
An Appeal from a non-final order from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Ivonne Cuesta, Judge. Marks & West, P.A., Evan R. Marks and Carolyn W. West, for appellant. Abramowitz and Associates, and Jordan B. Abramowitz, for appellee. Before FERNANDEZ, C.J., and MILLER, and GORDO, JJ. PER CURIAM. Affirmed.
§ 302-7.102 How is the mileage distance determined under the commuted rate method? To determine the distance from the authorized origin to the authorized destination, you may use the tariffs filed with GSA travel management centers or any other mileage guide authorized by your agency. Note to §§ 302-7.100 and 302-7.102 :
Any substantial deviation from the distances shown in the authorized mileage guides must be explained on the travel claim.
[FTR Amdt. 98, 66 FR 58196, Nov. 20, 2001, as amended by FTR Amdt. 2013-03, 78 FR 75484, Dec. 12, 2013]
No. 11-8974.

#### Castillo *v.*Hedgpeth, Warden.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.