alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
July 1, 2015

Mr. Michael Travisano

Michael Angelo Photographers LLC

91 Salem Road

Brick, NJ 08724

Dear Mr. Travisano:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from 

part 21(h) and §§ 45.23, 45.27(a), 45.29(3)(c)(d)(e)(f)(h), 61.113(a) and (b), 91.103, 91.119, 

91.121, 91.151, 91.203(a) and (b), 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(2), and 91.417(a) and 

(b) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we cannot process 

your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Cannot Process Your Request

We entered your exemption request, posted to the public docket on April 27, 2015, on behalf 

of Michael Angelo Photographers LLC into the public docket (No. FAA−2015−1223), but we 

are unable to process your request any further. The information you sent does not comply

with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, 

you must send us all of the following:

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described 

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your 

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.
2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you 

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677.

Sincerely,

Brenda Robeson

Program Analyst, Aircraft and 

 Airport Rules Division

Enclosure
CASE DIGEST: SPORT Air Traffic Controllers Org., 73 FLRA 830 (2024)

(Chairman Grundmann concurring)

The Arbitrator issued an award finding a Union grievance was not arbitrable. The 

Union excepted, arguing the award is contrary to law, fails to draw its essence from the 

parties’ 1994 collective-bargaining agreement, and is incomplete, ambiguous, and 

contradictory, so as to make implementation of the award impossible. The Agency filed 

an opposition, in which it requested the Authority grant certain remedies. The Authority 

denied the Union’s exceptions and the Agency’s remedial request.

This case digest is a summary of a decision issued by the Federal Labor Relations 

Authority, with a short description of the issues and facts of the case. Descriptions 

contained in this case digest are for informational purposes only, do not constitute legal 

precedent, and are not intended to be a substitute for the opinion of the Authority.
Federal Depository Library ProgramPersistent URL Home Page      

# Target for /GPO/LPS4050 lost

The target resource for this PURL can no longer be traced. The following is a list of the targets this PURL was previously assigned to.

Powered by the Federal Depository Library Program.                A service of the U.S. Government Publishing Office.
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-21-00002-CV

Daniel Aiello, TDCJ # 2176225

v.

Brian Collier, et al.

On Appeal from the

36th District Court of Bee County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. B-20-1339-CV-A

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed. The Court 

orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED. No costs are assessed, as appellant 

filed an affidavit of inability to pay costs. 

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

April 28, 2022
Exhibit
23.2









CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM







We
consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No.
333-159131 on Form S-3 of our reports dated February 25, 2010, relating to the
consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedules of Kansas
City Power & Light Company and subsidiaries, and the effectiveness of
internal control over financial reporting, appearing in the Annual Report on
Form 10-K of Kansas City Power & Light Company and subsidiaries for the year
ended December 31, 2009.





/s/DELOITTE
& TOUCHE LLP





Kansas
City, Missouri


February
25, 2010
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the June 30,
1996 Financial Statements included in the Company's Form 10-Q and is qualified
in its entirety by reference to such Form 10-Q.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1996
<CASH>                                            4868
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    72655
<ALLOWANCES>                                      3454
<INVENTORY>                                     155373
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                241251
<PP&E>                                          263340
<DEPRECIATION>                                  159106
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  373643
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            64984
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         69674
<OTHER-SE>                                      172370
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    373643
<SALES>                                         215011
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                215011
<CGS>                                           141604
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   141604
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  1024
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                1910
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  14887
<INCOME-TAX>                                      5434
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               9453
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      9453
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .35
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .35


</TABLE>
Case No. 5,312a.

#### The GENERAL GREEN.

[Blatchf. Pr. Cas. 40.] *1*

District Court, S. D. New York.

Aug. 1861.2

Prize — Enemt Propeutt.

1. Vessel condemned as enemy property.

2. Cargo restored, but without costs or dam-•nges, there being probable cause for the capture, it being laden in an enemy bottom during the war.

In admiralty.

2

 [Affirmed in Case No. 5,313.]

BETTS, District Judge.

The bark General Green and cargo were captured on the 4th of June, 1SG1, on the high seas off Cape Henry, by the United States steamship Quaker City, under command of Captain Carr, and are li-belled by the United States and captors on the charge that the bark was at the time owned by insurgents, traitors, public enemies, and persons engaged in actual hostilities against the government of the United States, and is liable to condemnation. Benjamin Atwell, on behalf of W. Oppenheim, interposed a claim to the bark, and' alleged that at the time in the libel and claim mentioned she belonged solely to the said Oppenheim, then and still a citizen of the United States of America, residing at Charleston, South Carolina, and if restored will belong to him; that she was sailed under his direction as her master, and was engaged at the time of seizure to take a cargo on freight from Sagua la Grande, in Cuba, to be delivered at Baltimore, Philadelphia, or New York, as the consignee should direct, and was directed to proceed to Baltimore, in the prosecution of which voyage she was captured, as charged in the libel. The claimant denies that the bark was liable to seizure and excepts generally to the sufficiency of the libel, and avers particularly the matters in substance before set up in the cases of the Hiawatha, Pioneer, Crenshaw, &c. Claims of Grinnel, Minturnv& Co. were interposed to the cargo, but the United States attorney relinquished the charges against the cargo, because it was shipped by loyal'citizens before notice of the war.

The only question upon the issue is whether the vessel, being owned at the time of seizure —June 4, 18G1 — by the claimant Oppenheim, and having been his on the 24th of April, 1861, the time of her sailing from Cuba on her home voyage, was just prize of war to a government vessel. In consonance with the rules adopted by the court in the suits before referred to, it is held that the vessel, her tackle and furniture, are enemy’s property, the citizens of South Carolina being at the time in a state of civil war against the United States; and it is accordingly adjudged, that the bark General Green, her tackle, apparel, and furniture, be condemned to the libellants as prize of war, with costs to be taxed and assessed, and that the cargo laden on board the bark be restored to the claimants, but without costs or damages to the claimants, there being probable cause for the capture, it having been laden on an enemy’s bottom, and exported after the existence of a state of war by South Carolina against the United States.

The decree in this case was affirmed by the circuit court on appeal [Case No. 5,313.]
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HAROLD LEE BRITTON,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0472 LKK GGH P

vs.

JEANNE S. WOODFORD, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action

seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General Order No. 262.

On February 2, 2006, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any

objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. Plaintiff

was granted an extension of time to file objections to the findings and recommendations and has

done so.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-

304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire

file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by

Case 2:04-cv-00472-LKK-GGH Document 47 Filed 03/28/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed February 2, 2006, are adopted in full;

and

2. Defendants’ June 29, 2005 motion to dismiss on the ground that plaintiff has

failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. 12(b)(6), is

granted and this case is dismissed. 

DATED: March 28, 2006.

/s/Lawrence K. Karlton 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

/brit0472.805

Case 2:04-cv-00472-LKK-GGH Document 47 Filed 03/28/06 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

_____________

N o . 22

- 3305

_____________

VERTIV, INC.; VERTIV CAPITAL, INC.; and GNARITIS, INC.,

Appellants

v.

WAYNE BURT PTE, LTD., and TGS MAHESH

_____________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of New Jersey

(D.C. Civil No. 3 : 20

- cv

- 00363)

District Judge: Honorable Georgette Castner

_____________

Before: CHAGARES, Chie f Judge

, HARDIMAN and FREEMAN

, Circuit Judges

.

_

___________ ___

ORDER AMENDING OPINION

It is hereby ordered that the Opinion filed on February 1, 2024, is amended as follows:

On Page 22 , in the last sentence ( which continues on to Page 23), the words

“Wayne Burt” shall be changed to “Vertiv” such that the sentence will read:

“ Vertiv has presented no evidence to counter the District Court’s finding about

equal distribution of assets. ”

By the Court,

s/ Arianna J. Freeman

Circuit Judge

Dated : February 5, 2024

T mm/ cc : Robert T. Szyba, Esq.

Patrick T. Collins, Esq
EXHIBIT 21

                            FLEET BOSTON CORPORATION
                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE CORPORATION

SUBSIDIARY                                        JURISDICTION OF INCORPORATION
----------                                        -----------------------------
Fleet National Bank                                         United States
  Fleet Bank (RI), National Association                     United States
    Fleet Credit Card Holdings, Inc.                        Delaware
      Fleet Credit Card Services, L.P. (98.73%)             Rhode Island
  Fleet Mortgage Group, Inc.                                Rhode Island
  Fleet Holding Corp.                                       Rhode Island
    Fleet Capital Corporation                               Rhode Island
      Fleet Leasing Partners I, L.P.                        Rhode Island
        Fleet Business Credit Corporation                   Delaware
  Fleet RI Holding Corp.                                    Rhode Island
  Fleet Investment Advisors Inc.                            New York
  Fleet Investment Services, Inc.                           Rhode Island
  Boston World Holding Corporation                          Massachusetts
    Boston Overseas Financial Corporation                   Argentina
Fleet Bank, National Association                            United States
Fleet Private Equity Co., Inc.                              Rhode Island
Quick & Reilly/Fleet Securities, Inc.                       Delaware
FleetBoston Robertson Stephens Inc.                         Massachusetts
BancBoston Investments Inc.                                 Massachusetts
  BancBoston Capital, Inc.                                  Massachusetts
1 Local Rule 47.5.1 provides: "The publication of opinions that

have no precedential value and merely decide particular cases on

the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes needless

expense on the public and burdens on the legal profession."

Pursuant to that rule, the court has determined that this opinion

should not be published.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 95-50003

Summary Calendar

_____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

VERSUS

HOMER LYNN HIXON,

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

(W-89-CR-96-1)

_____________________________________________________

(June 29, 1995)

Before JONES, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:1

Homer Hixon, pro se, appeals from the denial of 28 U.S.C. §

2255 relief. We AFFIRM.

I.

Hixon pleaded guilty to a charge of conspiracy to distribute

amphetamine, and was sentenced, inter alia, to 210 months

imprisonment. In sentencing Hixon, the district court applied the

career offender guideline, U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1, in light of Hixon's
- 2 -

two prior state court convictions for delivery of amphetamine. Our

court affirmed his conviction and sentence on direct appeal.

United States v. Hixon, No. 90-8172 (5th Cir. June 7, 1990)

(unpublished). In 1994, Hixon moved for modification of his

sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 3582, claiming improper application of

the career offender guideline. The district court, which first

determined that the motion was governed by 28 U.S.C. § 2255, denied

the motion initially, and again on Hixon's motion for

reconsideration. 

II.

Hixon claims § 2255 relief based on United States v.

Bellazerius, 24 F.3d 698, 700-02 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 115 S.

Ct. 375 (1994), which held that the Sentencing Commission exceeded

its authority under 28 U.S.C. § 994(h) in applying the career

offender guideline to defendants (like Hixon) convicted only of

conspiracy offenses. Hixon concludes that he is entitled to relief

because the career offender guideline cannot be applied to his

conspiracy conviction.

"Relief under ... § 2255 is reserved for transgressions of

constitutional rights and for a narrow range of injuries that could

not have been raised on direct appeal and would, if condoned,

result in a complete miscarriage of justice." United States v.

Vaughn, 955 F.2d 367, 368 (5th Cir. 1992). Our court recently

addressed the precise issue raised by Hixon and held that it is not
2 Because Williams bars Hixon's claim, we need not address the

retroactivity vel non of Bellazerius.

- 3 -

cognizable under § 2255. United States v. Williams, No. 94-50329

(5th Cir. March 27, 1995) (unpublished).2

III.

For the foregoing reasons, the judgement is

AFFIRMED.
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

EARNEST CASSELL WOODS, II, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

TOM L. CAREY, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:04-cv-1225 MCE AC P 

ORDER 

 The undersigned conducted a settlement conference in this case on August 20, 2015, 

during which an agreement was reached by the parties. ECF No. 352. Defendant has filed a 

motion to enforce the settlement agreement (ECF No. 353) which plaintiff has opposed (ECF No. 

360). A telephonic hearing on the motion was held on October 14, 2015. After hearing argument 

on the motion, the court determined that additional information was needed regarding the ability 

to effect payment in accordance with the agreement in light of the third-party beneficiary’s 

refusal to complete the necessary payee forms. Another hearing has been set for November 4, 

2015, at 1:30 p.m. before the undersigned at the Robert T. Matsui Federal Courthouse, 801 I 

Street, Courtroom 26, Sacramento, CA 95814. Plaintiff shall appear telephonically and counsel 

for defendant and an individual with authority to make decisions regarding the form of payment 

for the settlement amount shall appear in person. A separate order and writ of habeas corpus ad 

testificandum will issue to provide for plaintiff’s telephonic appearance. 

Case 2:04-cv-01225-MCE-AC Document 363 Filed 10/16/15 Page 1 of 2
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

2

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

 1. This case is set for a further hearing on the motion to enforce the settlement agreement 

on November 4, 2015, at 1:30 p.m before the undersigned at the Robert T. Matsui Federal 

Courthouse, 801 I Street, Courtroom 26, Sacramento, CA 95814. Defense counsel and an 

individual with authority to make decisions regarding the form of payment for the settlement 

amount shall appear in person. Plaintiff shall appear telephonically. 

 2. On the day of the hearing, plaintiff shall call the court ten minutes prior to the start of 

the hearing at (877) 336-1839 and follow the automated instructions. The access code is 2040217 

and, if requested, the security code is 4223. 

 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to fax a courtesy copy of this order to the Litigation 

Coordinator at California State Prison-Centinela at (760) 337-7650. 

DATED: October 15, 2015 

Case 2:04-cv-01225-MCE-AC Document 363 Filed 10/16/15 Page 2 of 2
No. 51992.

#### Briones *&*Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 127059-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

At the trial it was stipulated that the merchandise, issues, and facts herein are similar in all material respects, to those involved in *United States*v. *Browne Vintners Co., Inc.*(34 C. C. P. A. 112, C. A. D. 351), and that the quantities reported by the inspector as not landed were not in fact landed. In accordance with stipulation and following the decision cited it was held that the merchandise, insofar as it pertains to the quantities reported by the inspector as not landed, is subject to an allowance in duties and internal revenue taxes. The protests were sustained to this extent. '
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

      Pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States
Code, the undersigned officer of Genesis HealthCare Corporation (the "Company")
does hereby certify with respect to the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form
10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2005 (the "Report") that:

            (1)   The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
                  13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
                  amended; and

            (2)   The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
                  all material respects, the financial condition and results of
                  operations of the Company.

Date: May 10, 2005                       /s/ George V. Hager, Jr.
                                         -----------------------------
                                         George V. Hager, Jr.
                                         Chief Executive Officer

      The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section
1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code and is not being filed
as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
CASE STUDIES IN EMERGENCY ELECTION LITIGATION

Federal Judicial Center 9/1/2023 1

Preference for Faction Loyalists 

as Party Poll Workers 

Espada v. Rosado (John S. Martin, S.D.N.Y. 1:00-cv-6469) 

A federal complaint alleged that poll-worker appointments by a political party for a primary election were unconstitutionally targeted 

to one faction within the party. The district judge denied as immediate relief appointment of three of the plaintiffs as poll workers, 

because they had already been appointed. The judge denied the defendants’ motion for sanctions on a finding that the complaint, 

which had been dismissed voluntarily, included non-frivolous constitutional claims. 

Subject: Voting procedures. Topics: Party procedures; primary 

election; attorney fees. 

On August 29, 2000, five plaintiffs filed a federal complaint in the Southern 

District of New York alleging that the appointment of Democratic election 

inspectors and poll workers for the September 12 primary election in Bronx 

County unconstitutionally favored members of a faction within the party.1

“Plaintiffs sought immediate injunctive relief replacing 880 poll-workers who 

were scheduled to work in the upcoming primary election, and appointing 

[three of the plaintiffs] as election inspectors.”2

On September 7, Judge John S. Martin denied the plaintiffs immediate 

relief because two of the plaintiffs had been appointed poll workers four days 

before they filed the complaint, and a third plaintiff’s appointment was delayed pending training and became effective before the case was heard.3

 Because constitutional questions remained, Judge Martin did not dismiss the 

action.4

Following the defendants’ filing a motion for sanctions, the plaintiffs 

dismissed the action voluntarily.5

 Judge Martin, who had earlier denied a 

motion to dismiss the complaint, agreed with the plaintiffs that the action 

was not frivolous.6

1. Espada v. Rosado, No. 1:00-cv-6469, 2001 WL 1020549 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 5, 2001); Docket Sheet, Espada v. Rosado, No. 1:00-cv-6469 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 29, 2000) (D.E. 1). 

2. Espada, 2001 WL 1020549, at *1. 

3. Id. at *1, *3; Docket Sheet, supra note 1 (D.E. 17). 

Judge Martin retired on September 30, 2003. Federal Judicial Center Biographical Directory of Article III Federal Judges, www.fjc.gov/history/judges. 

4. Espada, 2001 WL 1020549, at *1, *3. 

5. Id. at *1; Docket Sheet, supra note 1 (D.E. 18 to 21). 

6. Id. at *3–*4.