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

## , Faulk, 

### Scott (OSn From: Sent: To: Subject:
Hi there, Tanja Fransen <mtwxgirl@gmail.com> Monday, July 22, 2013 11:16 AM EAS(OST) Montana EASComments 

# em JUt: I 0 

## 2: 3S

Ijust read the proposals for EAS service in eastern Montana, and am disappointed to see that one airline didn't even bid on aroute to Glasgow, MT. http://www.easflights.com/20 

### 13/071and-montana

-

### is-outl#more-89 5 http://www
..

airlineinfo.com/ostpdf88/153 ,pdf Ithink one ofthe reasons Silver Airways struggled in Glasgow, MT was their flight schedules, They left too late inthe morning to make some ofthe connections they needed in Billings to larger cities like Denver, Salt Lake and Minneapolis. And, on the return trip, they also had some odd hours, which would mean you had to sit inthe airport for along time forthat evening flight in to Glasgow. It generally made more sense to drive to Williston, ND orBillings, MT to avoid these huge waiting times between flights. Iknow many people who opted to drive 150to 275 miles to catch aflight elsewhere rather than sitin the Billings airport for 4-6 hours at a time. Ihave been on many flights in my 12years living here. There are some flights that are pretty empty, but the overwhelming majority ofthem have at least 60-75% capacity. And during hunting season, I've many times offered to leave.my luggage behind in Billings to be delivered later because the seats were full and we had reached ourweight limits. I've visited with and assisted people who have gone to Billings for the day for medical issues, or appointments. Sometimes a4.5 hour car ride is too much for them. I can tell all the sob stories you have already heard, but in the end itis called ESSENTIAL Air Service, because itis

### essentialto our livelihoods and our economy to have away to getto larger cities in less time. Thank you forthis consideration, Tanja Fransen Glasgow, MT

1
Exhibit 32.1

        CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

         In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of
International Imaging Systems, Inc. for the three months ended March 31, 2005,
I, C. Leo Smith, Chief Executive and Chief Financial Officer of International
Imaging Systems, Inc. hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best
of my knowledge and belief, that:

         (1)   such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the three months ended
         March 31, 2004, fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)
         or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

         (2)   the information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB
         for the three months ended March 31, 2004, fairly presents, in all
         material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
         International Imaging Systems, Inc.


                                     /s/ C. LEO SMITH
                                     -----------------------------------------
                                     C. Leo Smith
                                     Chief Executive and Chief Financial Officer

Date: May 23, 2005

                                     - 20 -
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

WENDY E. WAGNER, et al, 

 Plaintiffs, 

v. No. 11-cv-1841 (JEB) 

 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, 

Defendant. 

STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER REGARDING SCHEDULING 

 Plaintiffs having filed their Motion to Certify Facts, and defendant having filed its 

opposition thereto, and the parties have conferred on how best to proceed in order to 

obtain a prompt and just resolution of this case, it is hereby 

 STIPULATED AND AGREED that plaintiffs’ Motion to Certify Facts is hereby 

held in abeyance, and no party shall be required to make further submissions on that 

Motion absent a further stipulation of the parties or an order of the Court; 

 STIPULATED AND AGREED that, after defendant files its answer on December 

19, 2011, counsel for all parties shall meet for a conference pursuant to LCvR 16.3 and 

Fed. R. of Civ. Proc. Rule 26(f) at the offices of the defendant on December 20, 2011 to 

discuss the matters listed in LCvR 16.3(c) and develop a discovery plan that indicates the 

parties’ views and proposals. As required by LCvR 16.3(d), counsel will submit a joint 

report to the Court within 14 days after the conference has concluded. 

Case 1:11-cv-01841-JEB Document 12 Filed 12/07/11 Page 1 of 2 Case 1:11-cv-01841-JEB Document 13 Filed 12/07/11 Page 1 of 2
2

Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Alan B. Morrison 

Alan B. Morrison 

D. C. Bar No 073114 

George Washington Law School 

2000 H Street NW 

Washington D.C. 20052 

(202) 994 7120 

(202) 994 5157 (fax) 

abmorrison@law.gwu.edu.

/s/ Arthur B. Spitzer 

Arthur B. Spitzer 

D.C. Bar No 235960 

American Civil Liberties Union of 

 the Nation's Capital 

1400 20th Street, N.W., Suite 119 

Washington, D.C. 20036 

(202) 457 0800 

(202) 452-1868 (fax) 

artspitzer@gmail.com

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs 

Anthony Herman (D.C. Bar No. 424643) 

General Counsel 

David Kolker (D.C. Bar No. 394558) 

Associate General Counsel 

Harry Summers 

Assistant General Counsel 

Holly J. Baker 

Attorney 

/s/ Seth Nesin 

Seth Nesin 

Attorney 

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

999 E Street NW 

Washington, DC 20463 

Telephone: (202) 694-1650 

Fax: (202) 219-0260 

So Ordered this ___ day of December 2011 

_____________________________ 

James E. Boasberg 

United States District Judge 

Case 1:11-cv-01841-JEB Document 12 Filed 12/07/11 Page 2 of 2 Case 1:11-cv-01841-JEB Document 13 Filed 12/07/11 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

JOE SOLO, ET AL.,

Plaintiffs, No. 14-12719

v. District Judge Gerald E. Rosen

Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen

UNITED PARCEL SERVICE CO.,

Defendant.

 /

AMENDED ORDER

The Order entered on October 3, 2016 [Doc. #68] is STRICKEN, and will be

replaced with this Order.

Defendant United Parcel Service Co. has filed a Motion to Redact portions of the

Transcript from the Hearing Held on August 30, 2016 [Doc. #66]. Defendant’s counsel

states that at their Local Rule 7.1 conference, Plaintiffs’ counsel “stated that Plaintiffs do

not intend to oppose this motion, but reserve all arguments that Defendant has not

satisfied the applicable standards for sealing under the law of this Circuit.”

On August 30, 2016, I granted Defendant’s motion to seal the unredacted versions

of declarations submitted by George Downs and Karl Wixtrom, based on Defendant’s

argument that portions of those declarations contained proprietary commercial

information regarding Defendant’s billing and operational systems. The portions of the

hearing transcript that Defendant now asks to be redacted are in substance similar to the

declarations that I previously ordered sealed.

-1-

2:14-cv-12719-DPH-RSW Doc # 69 Filed 10/04/16 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 1530
Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion to Redact [Doc. #66] is GRANTED, without

prejudice to Plaintiffs’ future right to seek relief from this or any other sealing/redaction

order.

The unredacted transcript of the August 30, 2016 motion hearing [Doc. #63] will

be placed under seal. An unsealed, publically viewable version will be filed with the

following sections redacted:

-p. 54, third word of line 20 through line 22;

-p. 55, line 20 through line 22;

-p. 59, sixth word of line 13 through the eighth word of line 15;

-p. 60, third word of line six through the sixth word of line six;

-p. 60, third word of line 20 through p. 61, line 3.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/R. Steven Whalen 

R. STEVEN WHALEN

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Date: October 4, 2016

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was sent to parties of record on

October 4, 2016, electronically and/or by U.S. mail.

s/Carolyn M. Ciesla 

Case Manager to the 

Honorable R. Steven Whalen

-2-

2:14-cv-12719-DPH-RSW Doc # 69 Filed 10/04/16 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 1531
# CE2010016EN.01008101.xml

| 22.1.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 16/81 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.1.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 16/81

---

The driver's seat on wheeled agricultural or forestry tractors (codified version) ***I

P6_TA(2008)0532

European Parliament legislative resolution of 18 November 2008 on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the driver's seat on wheeled agricultural or forestry tractors (codified version) (COM(2008)0351 — C6-0243/2008 — 2008/0115(COD))

(2010/C 16 E/25)

(Codecision procedure — codification)

The European Parliament,

The European Parliament,

| — | having regard to the Commission proposal to the European Parliament and the Council (COM(2008)0351), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the Commission proposal to the European Parliament and the Council (COM(2008)0351),

| — | having regard to Article 251(2) and Article 95 of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C6-0243/2008), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Article 251(2) and Article 95 of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C6-0243/2008),

| — | having regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 20 December 1994 — Accelerated working method for official codification of legislative texts (1), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 20 December 1994 — Accelerated working method for official codification of legislative texts (1),

1

| — | having regard to Rules 80 and 51 of its Rules of Procedure, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Rules 80 and 51 of its Rules of Procedure,

| — | having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs (A6-0384/2008), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs (A6-0384/2008),

| A. | whereas, according to the Consultative Working Party of the Legal Services of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission, the proposal in question contains a straightforward codification of the existing texts without any change in their substance, |
| --- | --- |

A.

whereas, according to the Consultative Working Party of the Legal Services of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission, the proposal in question contains a straightforward codification of the existing texts without any change in their substance,

1.   Approves the Commission proposal as adapted to the recommendations of the Consultative Working Party of the Legal Services of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission;

2.   Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and the Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 102, 4.4.1996, p. 2.

1

---
reasons for the sentence demonstrates an abuse of discretion, we decline to

impose such a requirement upon the district court. 

### See Campbell v. Eighth 

### Judicial Dist. Court, 114 Nev. 410, 414, 957 P.2d 1141, 1143 (1998). Accordingly, we

ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.

Saitta

cc: Hon. Elliott A. Sattler, District Judge Washoe County Public Defender Attorney General/Carson City VVashoe County District Attorney Washoe District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2
(0) 1947A 

### e
TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS SERIES 02-410 

________________________________________________________________________ 

SCIENTIFIC COOPERATION 

Earth Sciences 

 Memorandum of Understanding between the 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

and TURKEY 

Signed at Reston and Ankara 

February 7 and April 10, 2002 

 with 

Annexes 

 
 NOTE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

 Pursuant to Public Law 89—497, approved July 8, 1966 

(80 Stat. 271; 1 U.S.C. 113)—

“. . .the Treaties and Other International Acts Series issued 

under the authority of the Secretary of State shall be competent 

 evidence . . . of the treaties, international agreements other than 

treaties, and proclamations by the President of such treaties and 

international agreements other than treaties, as the case may be, 

therein contained, in all the courts of law and equity and of maritime 

jurisdiction, and in all the tribunals and public offices of the 

United States, and of the several States, without any further proof 

or authentication thereof.” 
 TURKEY 

Scientific Cooperation: Earth Sciences 

 Memorandum of understanding signed at Reston and Ankara 

 February 7 and April 10, 2002; 

 Entered into force April 10, 2002. 

 With annexes.
# Senate Floor Activity - Wednesday, February 26, 2014

**

----

## The Journal

## Certain Procedures Dispensed With

## Transaction of Morning Business

## Legislative Business (Wednesday, February 26)

S. 1086

S. 1982

 S.Amdt. 2747

 S.Amdt. 2766

 S.Amdt. 2767

 S.Amdt. 2768

 S.Amdt. 2769

S.Res. 363

## Adjournment

        -  Bills, Acts, & Laws 
        -  Nominations 
        -  Treaties 
        -  Votes 
        -  Floor Proceedings 
        -  Rules & Procedure 
        -  Landmark Legislation 
        -  Sessions of Congress 
        -  Senate Archives 
        -  Public Disclosure 

### Floor Activity Summaries 

View previous floor activity files.Stream live Senate floor proceedings while a meeting is in progress.View past floor proceedings on CSPAN

### Additional Information 

Use this site's search or visit the Senate Index to find pages by topic.

To learn about the history of the Senate visit the About the Senate section of Senate.gov.

### Contact Your Senators 

Follow this guide on how to contact your senators by phone, postal mail, or on the web.
# CE2010015EN.01014002.xml

| 21.1.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 15/140 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.1.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 15/140

---

Wednesday 22 October 2008Variations to the terms of marketing authorisations for medicinal products ***I

P6_TA(2008)0510

European Parliament legislative resolution of 22 October 2008 on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2001/82/EC and Directive 2001/83/EC as regards variations to the terms of marketing authorisations for medicinal products (COM(2008)0123 — C6-0137/2008 — 2008/0045(COD))

2010/C 15 E/45

(Codecision procedure: first reading)

The European Parliament,

The European Parliament

having regard to the Commission proposal to the European Parliament and the Council (COM(2008)0123),

having regard to Articles 251(2) and 95 of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C6-0137/2008),

having regard to Rule 51 of its Rules of Procedure,

having regard to the report of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety and the opinion of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development (A6-0346/2008),

| 1. | Approves the Commission proposal as amended; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Approves the Commission proposal as amended;

| 2. | Calls on the Commission to refer the matter to Parliament again if it intends to amend the proposal substantially or replace it with another text; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Calls on the Commission to refer the matter to Parliament again if it intends to amend the proposal substantially or replace it with another text;

| 3. | Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and the Commission.

---

Wednesday 22 October 2008P6_TC1-COD(2008)0045

Position of the European Parliament adopted at first reading on 22 October 2008 with a view to the adoption of Directive 2008/.../EC of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2001/82/EC and Directive 2001/83/EC, as regards variations to the terms of marketing authorisations for medicinal products

(As an agreement was reached between Parliament and Council, Parliament's position at first reading corresponds to the final legislative act, Directive 2009/53/EC.)

---
§ 108.151 Two means required. ( a ) Each of the following must have at least 2 means of escape: ( 1 ) Each accommodation space with a deck area of at least 27 sq. meters (300 sq. ft.).
( 2 ) Each space, other than an accommodation space, that is continuously manned or used on a regular working basis except for routine security checks.
( 3 ) Weather deck areas where personnel may be normally employed.
( b ) When two means of escape are required from a space below the main deck, one the means of escape must provide for a rapid escape through openings that are not required to be watertight by damage stability considerations.
( c ) When two means of escape are required from a space above the main deck, one of the means of escape must provide for a rapid escape to a weather deck.
GEORGE STALLWORTH

,

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 17

- 2950

Opinion filed September 27, 2017.

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

-- Original Jurisdiction

.

George Stallworth, pro se , Petitioner.

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

PER CURIAM.

The pet ition for writ of habeas corpus is dismissed. See Baker v. State , 878 So.

2d 1236 (Fla. 2004).

This Court reserves jurisdiction to consider the imposition of sanctions.

ROBERTS, WETHERELL, and ROWE, JJ., CONCUR.
§ 91.45 Prohibition against intimidation or retaliation. A recipient may not engage in acts of intimidation or retaliation against any person who: ( a ) Attempts to assert a right protected by the Act or these regulations; or
( b ) Cooperates in any mediation, investigation, hearing, or other part of HHS' investigation, conciliation, and enforcement process.
#### Grant *v.*Durgin.

Where a declaration for breach of promise of marriage alleged that the defendant, on, &c„ promised to marry the plaintiff on request, and that the plaintiff afterwards on the 20th day of November, 1849, requested the defendant to marry her, and the summons merely required the defendant to appear, &c., and answer in a plea of the case on contract for breach of marriage promise with the plaintiff, when she was sole and unmarried in the year 1849: *Held,*that the summons did notgive to the defendant the same information which the declaration gave more at large, nor contain the substance thereof, and that this was sufficient cause to abate the writ.

Assumpsit. The declaration contained three special counts for breach of promise to marry. The defendant pleaded in abatement that the summons did not briefly give to the defendant the same information which the declaration gave more at large, nor contain the substance thereof, “in that the declaration contains three counts, while the said summons contains only one countand also, in another particular, which sufficiently appears from the opinion of the court. The plaintiff demurred to this plea.

*Ormsby,*for plaintiff.

*Fling & Hibbard,*for defendant.

Bartlett, J.

It is unnecessary to decide whether the mere fact that the “summons contains only one count,” while the declaration contains several, would of itself be sufficient reason for the abatement of the writ, for here a substantial part of the first count of the declaration is omitted in the summons. That count alleges that the defendant, on, &c., pfomised to marry the plaintiff upon request, and that she requested him thereafterwards on the 20th of November, 1849, to marry her, &c., and the summons,’ which merely requires the defendant to appear, &c., and answer, &c., in a plea of the case on contract, for breach of marriage promise with the plaintiff when she was sole and unmarried in the year 1849, by no means gives to the defendant the same information which the declaration gives more at large, nor contains the substance of it. The case, therefore, differs from *Adams*v. *Wiggin,*42 N. H. 554, where the variance between the writ and the summons was in a particular held to be mere matter of form. *Pitman*v. *Perkins,*28 N. H. 94; *Smith*v. *Butler,*25 N. H. 523*; Rogers*v. *Farnham,*25 N. H. 512. Upon the demurrer, therefore, there must be

*Judgment for the defendant that the writ abate.*
Editorial Note on Part 46
Editorial Note: The Department of Health and Human Services issued a notice of waiver regarding the requirements set forth in part 46, relating to protection of human subjects, as they pertain to demonstration projects, approved under section 1115 of the Social Security Act, which test the use of cost—sharing, such as deductibles, copayment and coinsurance, in the Medicaid program. For further information see 47 FR 9208, Mar. 4, 1982.

§ 46.304 Composition of Institutional Review Boards where prisoners are involved. In addition to satisfying the requirements in § 46.107 of this part, an Institutional Review Board, carrying out responsibilities under this part with respect to research covered by this subpart, shall also meet the following specific requirements: ( a ) A majority of the Board (exclusive of prisoner members) shall have no association with the prison(s) involved, apart from their membership on the Board.
( b ) At least one member of the Board shall be a prisoner, or a prisoner representative with appropriate background and experience to serve in that capacity, except that where a particular research project is reviewed by more than one Board only one Board need satisfy this requirement.
[43 FR 53655, Nov. 16, 1978, as amended at 46 FR 8386, Jan. 26, 1981]
#### Watson, appellant, v. Parker.

*Contract—construction of.*

In an action for goods sold, defendant alleged, in his answer, that he had delivered a quantity of grapes to H. at the plaintiff’s request, which the latter agreed to apply upon his account against the defendant. The defendant proved that after having had a negotiation with H. about selling grapes to him, he told the plaintiff that H. wanted some grapes; that he asked the plaintiff if he could pay his account with the grapes he was about selling to H., trade out, or turn his grapes on his account, and allow his men to trade out part, or all of it, as he saw fit. To which the plaintiff replied in the afiirmative; whereupon the defendant delivered grapes to H. amounting to over §330. It was proved that H. did not assume any liability for the defendant to the plaintiff, and that he was still liable to the defendant for the grapes sold to him, except a small portion which had been paid for. *Held,*that the plaintiff did nothing more than consent to take H.’s liability instead of the defendant’s for the indebtedness of the latter; that the fair inference from the conversation was that if H. would assume the payment of the defendant’s present and future indebtedness, the plaintiff would take that and give the defendant credit for that amount. *Mallory*v. *Gillett,*21 N. *Y.*415. *Held,*also, that the plaintiff was entitled to recover the amount of his account. ,

Appeal from a judgment in favor of defendant entered upon the report of a referee. The action was brought in Yates county by *693William H. Watson against Erastus W. Parker, to recover for grapes sold and delivered.

*I). B. Prosser,*for appellant.

*Brown & Wood,*for respondent.

Gilbert, J.

The head-note fully states the only points passed upon in the opinion. o .

*Judgment reversed and new trial granted.*