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

Plaintiff, 

v. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

Civil Action No. 

Rabbi Moses Heinemann et al., 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Defendants. 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

FILED 

FEB - 4 2009 

NANCY MAYER WHmINGTON. CLERK 

U.S. DISTRICT COURT 

09 0207 

This matter is before the Court on its initial review of plaintiff's pro se complaint and 

application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court will grant the in forma pauperis 

application and dismiss the case because the complaint fails to meet the minimal pleading 

requirements of Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

Pro se litigants must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Jarrell v. Tisch, 

656 F. Supp. 237, 239 (D.D.C. 1987). Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires 

complaints to contain" (1) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court's jurisdiction 

[and] (2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a); see Ciralsky v. CIA, 355 F.3d 661,668-71 (D.C. Cir. 2004). The Rule 8 

standard ensures that defendants receive fair notice of the claim being asserted so that they can 

prepare a responsive answer and an adequate defense and determine whether the doctrine of res 

judicata applies. Brown v. Califano, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977). 

Plaintiff, who claims to be homeless in Brooklyn, New Yark, sues a rabbi in Baltimore, 

Maryland, an organization in Brooklyn New Yark, and his "millionaire" wife, Complaint 
Caption, but he has not set forth cogent facts from which a claim or the basis of federal court 

jurisdiction may be discerned. Accordingly, the case will be dismissed by separate Order issued 

contem poraneously. 

iJ. 

Date: January L, 2009 

2
# C570_Certified

Printed: &D

# Legend
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

BENEFICIAL CONSUMER DISCOUNT 

COMPANY D/B/A BENEFICIAL 

MORTGAGE COMPANY OF 

PENNSYLVANIA, REPONDENT

v.

PAMELA A. VUKMAN,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 399 WAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 28th day of April, 2020, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
S. 1282 

One Hundred Fifteenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and eighteen 

An Act 

To redesignate certain clinics of the Department of Veterans Affairs located in 

Montana. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. REDESIGNATION OF CERTAIN DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS 

AFFAIRS CLINICS IN MONTANA. 

(a) DAVID J. THATCHER VA CLINIC.— 

(1) DESIGNATION.—The clinic of the Department of Veterans 

Affairs located at 2687 Palmer Street in Missoula, Montana, 

shall after the date of the enactment of this Act be known 

and designated as the ‘‘David J. Thatcher VA Clinic’’. 

(2) REFERENCES.—Any reference in any law, regulation, 

map, document, paper, or other record of the United States 

to the clinic referred to in paragraph (1) shall be considered 

to be a reference to the David J. Thatcher VA Clinic. 

(b) DR. JOSEPH MEDICINE CROW VA CLINIC.— 

(1) DESIGNATION.—The clinic of the Department of Veterans 

Affairs located at 1775 Spring Creek Lane in Billings, Montana, 

shall after the date of the enactment of this Act be known 

and designated as the ‘‘Dr. Joseph Medicine Crow VA Clinic’’. 

(2) REFERENCES.—Any reference in any law, regulation, 

map, document, paper, or other record of the United States 

to the clinic referred to in paragraph (1) shall be considered 

to be a reference to the Dr. Joseph Medicine Crow VA Clinic. 

(3) PUBLIC DISPLAY OF NAME.— 

(A) IN GENERAL.—Any local public display of the name 

of the clinic referred to in paragraph (1) carried out by 

the United States or through the use of Federal funds 

shall include the English name, Dr. Joseph Medicine Crow, 

and the Crow name, Dakaak Baako, of Dr. Joseph Medicine 

Crow. 

(B) LOCAL DISPLAY.—For purposes of subparagraph (A), 

a local public display of the name of the clinic referred 

to in paragraph (1) includes a display inside the clinic, 

on the campus of the clinic, and in the community surrounding the clinic, such as signs directing individuals 

to the clinic. 

(c) BENJAMIN CHARLES STEELE VA CLINIC.— 

(1) DESIGNATION.—The clinic of the Department of Veterans 

Affairs located at 1766 Majestic Lane in Billings, Montana, 

shall after the date of the enactment of this Act be known 

and designated as the ‘‘Benjamin Charles Steele VA Clinic’’. 
S. 1282—2 

(2) REFERENCES.—Any reference in any law, regulation, 

map, document, paper, or other record of the United States 

to the clinic referred to in paragraph (1) shall be considered 

to be a reference to the Benjamin Charles Steele VA Clinic. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
**Exhibit
      32.2**





**Statement
      of Chief Financial Officer Furnished**


**Pursuant
      to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**





The
      undersigned, Gary F. Hoskins, is the Chief Financial Officer of Citizens South
      Banking Corporation (the “Company”).





This
      statement is being furnished in connection with the filing by the Company of
      the
      Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2007
      (the “Report”).





By
      execution of this statement, I certify that to the best of my
      knowledge:





A)
            the
                Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
                of
                the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d))
                and





B)
            the
                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
                Company
                as of the dates and for the periods covered by the
                Report.




Dated November
                8, 2007
              
              /s/
                Gary
                F. HoskinsGary
                F. HoskinsChief
                    Financial Officer


This
      statement is authorized to be attached as an exhibit to the Report so that
      this
      statement will accompany the Report at such time as the Report is filed with
      the
      Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350. It is not intended that this statement
      be
      deemed to be filed for purposes of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
      amended.





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to Citizens South Banking Corporation and will be retained
      by Citizens South Banking Corporation and furnished to the Securities
      and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
### -78.5 -78.0 -77.5 -77.0 -76.5 -76.0 38.0 38.5 39.0 

## ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 

## ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 

### 500 1000 1500 100 18 12 06 00 05/26 

## NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

# Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 26 May 07

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 38.81 N 76.74 WMeters AGL 

## ★ ■ ■ ■ ■



## ★ ■ ■ ■ ■ 

## ★ ● ●



## ★ ● ● ● ●
<Page>



INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the use in this Post-Effective Amendment No. 4 to Registration
Statement No. 333-104356 of Hartford Life Insurance Company Separate Account
Seven on Form N-4, of our report dated February 19, 2003 of Hartford Life
Insurance Company relating to the financial statements as of and for the year
ended December 31, 2002, 2001 and 2000, and of our report dated February 21,
2003 of Hartford Life Insurance Company Separate Account Seven relating to the
financial statements as of and for the year ended December 31, 2002, appearing
in the Statement of Additional Information, which is a part of such Registration
Statement, and to the reference to us under the headings "Experts" in such
Statement of Additional Information.

Deloitte & Touche LLP
Hartford, Connecticut
October 6, 2003
OSWER/OSRTI Washington, DC 20460 

## N ATIONAL 

## P RIORITIES 

## L IST 

## (NPL) ***Proposed Site *** September 2015 

### FORMER KIL

- TONE COMPANY Vineland, New Jersey Cumberland County

 **Site Location :**  The Former Kil

- Tone Company (FKT) site is located at 527 East Chestnut Avenue in the city of Vineland, Cumberland County, New Jersey. The site area includes the former L ERCO Company property which is located directly across East Chestnut Avenue from the fo rmer Kil

- Tone Company and numerous residential properties which surround both the L ERCO and former Kil -Tone Company property

.

 **Site History:** FKT operated at the property from the late 1910s, manufacturing arsenic

- based pesticides until the late 1930s. Through mergers and acquisitions, the property became known as John Lucas & Company, Inc. and then Sherwin Williams Co. until it ceased operation s in the late 1930s. The property was purchased in 2008 by Urban Manufacturing LLC and the current operator Urban Sign and Crane (USC) manufactures commercial signs. Arsenic is not used by USC in their operations.

 **Site Contamination/Contaminants:** The fo rmer FKT property, the L ERCO property and a number of residential properties have soil contaminated with arsenic and lead above health

- based benchmark concentrations

.

 **Potential Impacts on Surrounding Community/Environment :**  The contaminated soil extends throughout the FKT and L ERCO property and on a number of residential properties in the surrounding area. Arsenic and l ead levels at the site and on residential properties exceed the state residential and

non- residential soil cleanup standard. These levels could pose a health hazard to more than 133 residents and workers in the contaminated area

.  **Response Activities (to date):** Various investigations have been conducted but there have not yet been any response activities.

 **Need for NPL Listing:** Soil contaminated with arsenic and lead at commercial and residential properties requires cleanup to protect human health and the environment. NPL listing has been determined to be the most effective approach for cleanup. The EPA received a letter of suppo rt for placing this site to the NPL from the state

.

[The description of the site (release) is based on information available at the time the site was evaluated with the HRS. The description may change as additional information is gathered on the sources and extent of contamination. See 56 FR 5600, February 11, 1991, or subsequent FR notices.]

For more information about the hazardous substances identified in this narrative summary, including general information regarding the effects of exposure to these substances on human health, please see the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) ToxFAQs. ATSDR ToxF AQs can be found on the Internet at http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxfaqs/index.asp or by telephone at 1

- 888

- 42

- ATSDR or 1

- 888

- 422

- 8737.
The Ho norable Jean C. Hamilton, United States District Judge for the Eastern 1 District of Missouri. United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 96-3351

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Eastern v. * District of Missouri. * Eldon L. Fisher, Doing Business as * [Unpublished] Medical Arts Pharmacy, * * Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: March 10, 1997 Filed: July 2, 1997

___________ Before FAGG, Circuit Judge, HEANEY, Senior Circuit Judge, and MORRI S SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judge.

___________ PER CURIAM. Eldon L. Fisher appeals from his conviction for Medicaid fraud in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7b(a)(1)(i) and asserts that the distr ict court erred in instructing the

1 jury, admitting certain evidence, and limiting the cross-examination of certai n witnesses. He also takes exception to the sentence that the d istrict court imposed. After-2-

a car eful review of the record and the parties' briefs, we conclude that there was n o error. Because a thorough opinion on th ese matters would lack precedential value, we affirm the trial court's judgment in all respects. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
This publication is available from the NASA Center for AeroSpace Information, 301–621–0390.

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE

2. REPORT DATE

19. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION

 OF ABSTRACT

18. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION

 OF THIS PAGE

Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources,

gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this

collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson

Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302, and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0704-0188), Washington, DC 20503.

NSN 7540-01-280-5500 Standard Form 298 (Rev. 2-89)

Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39-18

298-102

Form Approved

OMB No. 0704-0188

12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION

 REPORT NUMBER

5. FUNDING NUMBERS

3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

6. AUTHOR(S)

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

12a. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

13. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words)

14. SUBJECT TERMS

17. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION

 OF REPORT

16. PRICE CODE

15. NUMBER OF PAGES

20. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT

Unclassified Unclassified

Technical Memorandum

Unclassified

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Lewis Research Center

Cleveland, Ohio 44135–3191

1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave blank)

10. SPONSORING/MONITORING

 AGENCY REPORT NUMBER

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Washington, DC 20546–0001

Available electronically at http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/GLTRS

February 1990

NASA TM—102492

E–5284

WU–506–43–11–00

48

A03

Self-Lubricating Polymer Composites and Polymer Transfer Film

Lubrication for Space Applications

Robert L. Fusaro

Polymers; Friction; Wear; Transfer; Self-lubricating; Composites

Unclassified -Unlimited

Subject Category: 27

The use of self-lubricating polymers and polymer composites in space is somewhat limited today. In general, they are

only used when other methods are inadequate. There is potential, however, for these materials to make a significant

impact on future space missions if properly utilized. This paper surveys some of the different polymers and fillers used to

make self-lubricating composites. It delves into the mechanisms of composite lubrication and wear, the theory behind

transfer film lubricating mechanisms, and some factors which affect polymer composite wear and transfer. In addition,

some of the current space tribology application areas for self-lubricating polymer composites and polymer transfer are

mentioned.

Responsible person, Robert L. Fusaro, 216–433–6080.
# Admitted Reinsurers

Printed: &D

# Legend
* 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. 02-30121

Summary Calendar

JOHNNY L. DUNCAN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

BOB WOOD; NIKE-UNITED STATES OF AMERICA;

PHIL KNIGHT; NIKE INC.; WIEDEN & KENNEDY LLC,

Defendants-Appellees.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 00-CV-3777-S

-------------------- November 19, 2002

Before JONES, STEWART, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Johnny L. Duncan appeals from the summary judgment dismissal

of his suit alleging th at the defendants' advertising campaign

using variations of the slogan "I Can" violated his copyright in a

poem th at he created in 1986 entitled "I Can." After a d e novo

review, we affirm.

The defendants argue that our review is limited to determining

whether the district court abused its discretion in denyingNo. 02-30121

-2-

Duncan's purported Rule 60(b) motion. Because Duncan's motion was

filed within ten days of the district court's summary judgment, it

is treated as a Rule 59(e) motion. See Harcon Barge Co. v. D & G

Boat Rentals, Inc.

, 784 F.2d 665, 670 (5th Cir. 1986)(en banc).

Although Duncan's notice of appeal designated only the denial of

the post-judgment motion, we overlook such technical errors or

mistakes and infer that Duncan intended to appeal the adverse

underlying judgment. S ee Lockett v. Anderson

, 230 F.3d 695, 700

(5th Cir. 2000).

Duncan argues that his summary judgment evidence demonstrated

that the defendants had access to his poem "I Can" because the poem

appeared for several years in a calendar, a book, and a poetry

anthology, all of which Duncan asserts were distributed throughout

the cou ntry. He also asserts that his poem and the defendants'

advertisements were s ubstantially similar. We conclude from a

review of the record that Duncan has failed to show more than a

bare possibility that the defendants had access to his work and

that the poem and advertisements are not substantiall y similar.

See Peel & Co., Inc. v. The Rug Market

, 238 F.3d 391, 394 (5th Cir.

2001); Ferguson v. National Broadcasting Co., Inc. , 584 F.2d 111,

113 (5th Cir. 1978).

AFFIRMED.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 19 - 0502

_________________ GATEWAY HOSPITALITY GROUP INC., WESTERN HOSPITALITY GROUP, LP, d/b/a HILTON GARDEN INN MISSOULA; KALISPELL HOTEL, LLC, d/b/a HILTON GARDEN INN KALISPELL; BOZEMAN LODGING INVESTORS, LLC, d/b/a HILTON GARDEN INN BOZEMAN; JWT HOSPITALITY GROUP, LLC, d/b/a HILTON GARDEN INN BILLINGS, and JOHN DOES 1 - 5,

Plaint iffs and Appellees, v. PHILADELPHIA INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant and Appellant. O R D E R

_________________ 

### Pursuant to the Internal Operating Rules of this Court, this cause is classified for submission on briefs to a five - justice panel of this Court. The Clerk is directed to provide a copy hereof to all counsel of record and to the Honorable Shane Vannatta , District Judge . For the Court,

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

March 4 2020

03/04/2020
Case Number: DA 19-0502
Opinion issued January 9, 2024

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-23-00821-CV

———————————

IN RE ADRIAN SIBLEY, Relator

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator, Adrian Sibley, has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus, 

challenging (1) the trial court’s denial of her “pauper’s affidavit” and (2) the trial 

court’s subject-matter jurisdiction.1 Relator requests that the Court “grant [her] 

petition for [m]andamus [relief] and order the trial court to approve [her] pauper’s

1 The underlying case is Walter William Haufler, Ladonna Florin Haufler, and 

Haifler Family Living Trust v. Adrian Sibley, Cause No. 1214095, in the County 

Court at Law No. 1 of Harris County, Texas, the Honorable Audrie Lawton-Evans 

presiding.
2

affidavit . . . or in the alternative, order . . . the trial court . . . [to] set no bond or in 

the alternative, [hold] . . . the trial court has no subject-matter jurisdiction of [her] 

pauper’s affidavit and the judgment.”

We deny the petition. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a). All pending motions are 

dismissed as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Goodman, Countiss, and Farris.
EX-10.3




 Exhibit 10.3 

Apache Corporation Non-Qualified Retirement/Savings Plan 

Amendment to Definition of Change of Control 

Apache Corporation (“Apache”) sponsors the Apache Corporation Non-Qualified Retirement/Savings Plan (the
“Plan”). In section 8.02 of the Plan, Apache reserved the right to amend the Plan from time to time. Apache hereby exercises that right as follows, effective March 1, 2021: 

 

	1.	 Section 1.06 (Change of Control) is hereby amended by replacing the word “Apache” with the
phrase “APA Corporation, a Delaware corporation, or its successor”. 


 [Signature Page Follows] 

  
 Page 1 of 1 












 EXECUTED this 1st day of March, 2021. 

 

			
	APACHE CORPORATION
		
	By:	 	/s/ Brandy Jones
		 	 Brandy Jones
 Vice President, Human
Resources




  
 Signature Page to Apache
Corporation Non-Qualified Retirement/Savings Plan 
 Amendment to Definition of Change of Control
# C_2016428EN.01001201.xml

| 21.11.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 428/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.11.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 428/12

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice di Pace di Taranto (Italy) lodged on 8 September 2016 — Criminal proceedings against Antonio Semeraro

(Case C-484/16)

(2016/C 428/12)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Referring court

Giudice di Pace di Taranto

Party to the main proceedings

Party to the main proceedings

Antonio Semeraro

Question referred

Question referred

Does Directive 2012/29/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 establishing minimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime, and replacing Council Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA, (1) implemented in Italy by Legislative Decree No 212 of 15 December 2015 (Gazzetta Ufficiale General Series No 3 of 5 January 2016), in particular recitals 9, 66 and 67 and Article 2(1)(a) thereof, preclude the repeal of the criminal offence set out in Article 594 of the Criminal Code referred to in Articles [1] et seq. of Legislative Decree No 7 of 15 January 2016, having regard to Article 83 TFEU and Articles 2 and 3 of the Italian Constitution and to Articles 49, 51, 53 and 54 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union?

1

---

(1)  OJ 2012 L 315, p. 57.

1

---
December 1, 1959

No. 63574.

Suit 4949.

#### United States *v.*C. J. Tower & Sons.

C.D. 1887. (Appeal dismissed October 8, 1959.)