alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Aerospace Aug 13, 2014 To: U.S. Department

of Transportation,

Eaton Aerospace, LLC 3675 Patterson Avenue S.E. Grand Rapids, Ml 49512 Tel: 616-949-1090 JP0-2014-07 Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington,
DC 20590 Re: 2013-NM-231-AD Dear Sir/ Madam: Eaton Aerospace, LCC, hereafter referred toas"Eaton",

is the original equipment manufacturer for partnumber 692D100-13 and 692D100-15. Eaton wasnotified by Emirates Airline of the omission
of serial numbers

in Service Bulletin 692D1 00-52-4, Revision

2,Dated AUG 01, 2013. Eaton has reviewed manufacturing records and found that two digits were transposed

in Service Bulletin 692D100-52-4, Table
1. "692D100-13 Actuators with AMS9310 Steel Matched Gear Sets". Specifically what is listed as3173B- 3813B, should be 3137B- 3813B. This error caused serial numbers 3137B

-3172B tobe omitted even though they contain AMS9130 Steel Matched Gear Sets. Eaton has also reviewed the repair
& overhaul record for 692D1 00-13 serial number 2257and found that
it wasmodified by Eaton tocontain anAMS9130 Steel Matched Gear Set and reidentified as2257B

. To correctthese omissions, Eaton recommends that Service Bulletin 692D100-52-4, Table

1 "692D100-13 Actuators with AMS9310 Steel Matched Gear Sets" be updated
toinclude serial numbers 2257B and 3137B- 3172B.
In doing so,the Boeing Service Bulletins 767-52A0100, Rev 02,Dated 26-Sep-2013 and 777-52-0053, Rev 01,Dated 26-Sep-2013 will also need tobe updated as they reference Service Bulletin 692D1 00-52-4 by revision level. In summary,692D100-13 serial numbers 2257B and 3137B- 3172B were inadvertently omitted from Service Bulletin 692D100-52-4 and could be re-identified per paragraphs 3.B and 3.C to operateasintended by 2013-NM-231-AD. Regards, 0y **~**f Okt---0 JayP. O'Neal Product Support Manager Eaton Aerospace, LLC
No. 66454.

#### Ignaz Strauss & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 183289-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of candlesticks and candelabras similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 62036, except that they are not plated with platinum, gold, or silver, nor colored with gold lacquer, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
No. P68/456.

protest 61/16631 (San Francisco).

No. P68/457.

protests 61/23078, etc. (San Francisco).

#### Walter H. Joseph, and Arthur J. Fritz & Company *v.*United States, James S. Baker (Imports) Co. and Ted L. Rausch et al. *v.*United States,

Rao, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of sledge hammers and sledge heads similar in all material respects to those the subject of *James S. Baker (Imports) Co.*and *Ted L. Rausch et al.*v. *United States*(58 Cust. Ct. 553, C.D. 3048), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
H. Res. 35

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

January 9, 2007.

Resolved, That in clause 4(a) of rule X of the Rules of 

the House of Representatives, add the following new paragraph at the end: 

‘‘(5)(A) There is established a Select Intelligence Oversight Panel of the Committee on Appropriations (hereinafter 

in this paragraph referred to as the ‘select panel’). The select 

panel shall be composed of not more than 13 Members, Delegates, or the Resident Commissioner appointed by the Speaker, of whom not more than eight may be from the same political party. The select panel shall include the chairman and 

ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations, the chairman and ranking minority member of its Subcommittee on Defense, six additional members of the Committee on Appropriations, and three members of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. 

‘‘(B) The Speaker shall designate one member of the select panel as its chairman and one member as its ranking minority member. 
2

•HRES 35 EH 

‘‘(C) Each member on the select panel shall be treated 

as though a member of the Committee on Appropriations for 

purposes of the select panel. 

‘‘(D) The select panel shall review and study on a continuing basis budget requests for and execution of intelligence 

activities; make recommendations to relevant subcommittees 

of the Committee on Appropriations; and, on an annual basis, 

prepare a report to the Defense Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations containing budgetary and oversight 

observations and recommendations for use by such subcommittee in preparation of the classified annex to the bill 

making appropriations for the Department of Defense. 

‘‘(E) Rule XI shall apply to the select panel in the same 

manner as a subcommittee (except for clause 2(m)(1)(B) of 

that rule). 

‘‘(F) A subpoena of the Committee on Appropriations or 

its Subcommittee on Defense may specify terms of return to 

the select panel.’’. 

Attest:

Clerk.
Case No. 14,152.

#### TRAVERS v. RAMSAY.

[3 Cranch, C. C. 354.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

Dec. Term, 1828.

Fraudulent Conveyance — Possession—Bill of Sale.

1. If the vendor and vendee of chattels live together in the same house, the possession will be presumed to be and remain in the vendor until the contrary is shown.

*1442.An absolute bill of sale of chattels is void as to creditors if the possession does not accompany and follow the deed.

Replevin [by John Travers against R. T. Ramsay]. Defence under an execution upon a judgment against George Travers, the plaintiff’s father; and that the bill of sale from the father was void as to creditors, because the possession remained with the father. The evidence was that the son, the plaintiff, lived in the same house with the father, and that no change of possession took place in consequence of the bill of sale.

R. S. Coxe, for plaintiff.

THE COURT

(THRUSTON, Circuit Judge, absent),

instructed the jury that if the possession remained with the grantor, the deed was void as to creditors; and that if the title was in the father, the possession should be presumed to be in him also, at the time of the deed, unless the contrary should appear.

Verdict for the defendant
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     (Replace this text with the legend)
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000874971
<NAME>                        BERTUCCI'S, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-26-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   APR-18-1998
<CASH>                                         5,395
<SECURITIES>                                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  1,144
<ALLOWANCES>                                       0
<INVENTORY>                                    1,110
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               9,996
<PP&E>                                       131,808
<DEPRECIATION>                                40,733
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               104,843
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         12,299
<BONDS>                                            0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              0
<PREFERRED>                                        0
<COMMON>                                          45
<OTHER-SE>                                    72,280
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 104,843
<SALES>                                       43,956
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              43,956
<CGS>                                         10,925
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 10,925
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              28,324
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               298
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                1,312
<INCOME-TAX>                                     476
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              836
<DISCONTINUED>                                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    0
<CHANGES>                                          0
<NET-INCOME>                                     836
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   0.09
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   0.09
        


</TABLE>
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION

FOR REINSTATEMENT OF YOLANDA M. THOMPSON TO THE BAR OF MARYLAND * * * * * * * * * * IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND

Misc. Docket AG No. 77 September Term, 2018

ORDER Upon consideration of the Verified Petition for Reinstatement filed pursuant to Maryland Rule 19-751 by Yolanda M. Thompson, an att orney not admitted to practice law by this Court but suspended from practicing in Maryland for sixty (60) days by an Opinion and Order dated December 14, 2018 and the r esponse of Bar Counsel to said petition, it is this 24th day of April, 2019, ORDERED, by the Court of Appeals of Maryland, that the petition should be, and hereby is, GRANTED; and it is further ORDERED, that the Clerk of this Cou rt is directed, in accordance with Rule 19-751(g)(2), to remove the petitioner’s name from the list maintained in this Court of non-admitted attorneys who are ineligible to practi ce law in this State and to certify that

fact to the Board of Law Examiners and the clerks o f all courts in the State.

/s/ C layton Greene Jr. Senior Judge
From: jsimkins@us.ibm.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:55:07 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

James Simkins

Tucson, AZ 85749
Before the First Division,

July 10, 1957

No. 61016.

protest 235615-K/6117 (Chicago).

#### Naumes Forwarding Service *v.*United States,

*353Opinion by

Olives, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that jthe merchandise consists of buckles and lighters similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 57300, the merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption prior to June 6, 1951, was held dutiable at 45 percent under paragraph 1527 (c) (2), as modified by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (T. D. 51802), and that entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after June 6, 1951, was held dutiable at 35 percent under said paragraph, as modified by the Torquay Protocol to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (T. D. 52759), as claimed.
From: r.radecki@sbcglobal.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:11:54 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Richard Radecki

Fountain Valley, CA 92708
From: j_gallagher@sbcglobal.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:12:49 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

John Gallagher

Yukon, OK 73099
#### Kam SANTOS, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Daryl GATES; et al., Defendants, and James Lee, LAPD Officer, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 04-56216.

D.C. No. CV-98-04113-FMC.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted July 11, 2005.*

Decided July 13, 2005.

*535Stephen Yagman, Yagman *&*Yagman & Reichmann, Venice Beach, CA, for Plaintiff — Appellant.

Craig J. Miller, for Defendant — Appellee.

Before SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, RAWLINSON and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM**

Kam Santos appeals pro se the district court’s judgment in favor of Los Angeles Police Department Officer James Lee following a jury trial in Santos’ action alleging excessive use of force. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we dismiss the appeal for Santos’ failure to provide a transcript.

Santos contends that the jury’s finding was unsupported by the evidence and that the trial was tainted by judicial bias, jury bias, and ineffective assistance of counsel, but he did not provide a transcript of the proceedings as required by Fed. R.App. P. 10(b)(2). Without a trial transcript and supporting affidavits we are unable to review Santos’ contentions, and we dismiss the appeal. *See Syncom Capital Corp. v. Wade,*924 F.2d 167, 169 (9th Cir.1991).

In his reply brief Santos contends that because the district court denied his motion to proceed in forma pauperis, the transcript was “unavailable” to him and he should be able to provide a substitute statement of the proceedings under Fed. R.App. P. 10(c). Even if not waived, this contention lacks merit because the transcript was not “physically unobtainable” and was therefore not “unavailable.” *Thomas v. Computax Corp.,*631 F.2d 139, 143 (9th Cir.1980). Further, the district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Santos’ motion seeking production of transcripts at government expense, because Santos made only conclusory statements about the issues he would raise on appeal. *See McKinney v. Anderson,*924 F.2d 1500, 1511-12 (9th Cir.1991), *overruled on other grounds by Hell**536*ing v. McKinney,*502 U.S. 903, 112 S.Ct. 291, 116 L.Ed.2d 236 (1991).

DISMISSED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the *courts*of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>           6
<LEGEND>            The  schedule   contains   summary   financial   information
                    extracted  from  the  financial  statements  and  supporting
                    schedules  as of the end of the most  current  period and is
                    qualified in its  entirety by  reference  to such  financial
                    statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>               0000764901
<NAME>              Connecticut Daily Tax Free Income Fund
<SERIES>
<NUMBER>            1
<NAME>              CLASS A

<S>                               <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             JAN-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                FEB-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                  JUL-31-1999
<INVESTMENTS-AT-COST>         174777988
<INVESTMENTS-AT-VALUE>        174777988
<RECEIVABLES>                 1031835
<ASSETS-OTHER>                0
<OTHER-ITEMS-ASSETS>          14557635
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                190367458
<PAYABLE-FOR-SECURITIES>      0
<SENIOR-LONG-TERM-DEBT>       0
<OTHER-ITEMS-LIABILITIES>     319849
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES>           319849
<SENIOR-EQUITY>               0
<PAID-IN-CAPITAL-COMMON>      190053358
<SHARES-COMMON-STOCK>         190071668
<SHARES-COMMON-PRIOR>         182641898
<ACCUMULATED-NII-CURRENT>     0
<OVERDISTRIBUTION-NII>        0
<ACCUMULATED-NET-GAINS>       (5749)
<OVERDISTRIBUTION-GAINS>      0
<ACCUM-APPREC-OR-DEPREC>      0
<NET-ASSETS>                  190047609
<DIVIDEND-INCOME>             0
<INTEREST-INCOME>             2759043
<OTHER-INCOME>                0
<EXPENSES-NET>                792015
<NET-INVESTMENT-INCOME>       1967028
<REALIZED-GAINS-CURRENT>      1603
<APPREC-INCREASE-CURRENT>     0
<NET-CHANGE-FROM-OPS>         1968631
<EQUALIZATION>                0
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-INCOME>     1967028
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-GAINS>      0
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OTHER>         0
<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-SOLD>       261260587
<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-REDEEMED>   255781420
<SHARES-REINVESTED>           1950603
<NET-CHANGE-IN-ASSETS>        7431373
<ACCUMULATED-NII-PRIOR>       0
<ACCUMULATED-GAINS-PRIOR>     (7352)
<OVERDISTRIB-NII-PRIOR>       0
<OVERDIST-NET-GAINS-PRIOR>    0
<GROSS-ADVISORY-FEES>         274082
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>            0
<GROSS-EXPENSE>               792015
<AVERAGE-NET-ASSETS>          183223213
<PER-SHARE-NAV-BEGIN>         1.00
<PER-SHARE-NII>               .01
<PER-SHARE-GAIN-APPREC>       0
<PER-SHARE-DIVIDEND>          .01
<PER-SHARE-DISTRIBUTIONS>     0
<RETURNS-OF-CAPITAL>          0
<PER-SHARE-NAV-END>           1.00
<EXPENSE-RATIO>               .87



</TABLE>