alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Curtis BENJAMIN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 69-394.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Second District.

Oct. 24, 1969.

*342Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Morton J. Hanlon, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lakeland, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant appeals the denial of his motion to vacate and set aside sentence filed pursuant to CrPR 1.850, 33 F.S.A. We have carefully read the record, the briefs and all other matters filed in this cause and no error having been made to appear the order denying his motion is affirmed.

LILES, Acting C. J., and MANN and McNULTY, JJ., concur.
#### Frederick James FORTINI, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-65.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Feb. 27, 1970.

Appeal from Criminal Court of Record, Palm Beach County; Vaughn J. Rudnick, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3112 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 3112

 To require the Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection to 
 annually review and update CBP policies and manuals to ensure uniform 
          inspection practices along the United States border.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 24, 2023

  Mr. Ricketts (for himself and Mr. Tillis) introduced the following 
 bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland 
                   Security and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To require the Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection to 
 annually review and update CBP policies and manuals to ensure uniform 
          inspection practices along the United States border.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Ensure Uniform Border Inspection 
Practices Act''.

SEC. 2. UNIFORM INSPECTION PRACTICES.

    (a) Annual Review.--Not later than 180 days after the date of the 
enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter, the Commissioner of 
U.S. Customs and Border Protection shall complete the review described 
in subsection (b) and any updates that are necessary to accomplish the 
objectives described in subsection (c) of the policies and manuals of--
            (1) the Office of Field Operations related to inspections 
        at ports of entry; and
            (2) the U.S. Border Patrol related to inspections between 
        ports of entry.
    (b) Elements.--Each review required under subsection (a) shall 
include--
            (1) a comprehensive review of how fentanyl is being 
        transported across the borders of the United States; and
            (2) a comprehensive review of how people are unlawfully 
        crossing the borders of the United States, including the places 
        at which such crossings are occurring.
    (c) Objective.--The Commissioner shall ensure the uniform 
implementation of inspection practices at ports of entry to effectively 
respond to technological and methodological changes designed to 
disguise unlawful activity (such as smuggling drugs and humans) across 
the borders of the United States.
                                 <all>
```
• i'iJtiNT OF 

February 13, 2012 .:til\jHf>\MON 

L i 

To Whom It May Concern: 

;o 23 p i: us 

I am writing this letter in support of Sun Country Airlines retaining their service to Reagan 

Airport in Washington D.C. Please reference to Sun Country slot exemption Docket No. FAA2012-0089. 

The ability of passengers to have the choice of an airline that actually offers fares that are 

reasonable leaving from Lansing and connecting to the East will be severely impacted if this 

service is discontinued. Sun Country has provided a comfortable and safe service from the time 

that they have flown from Lansing. 

We have had the opportunity to fly Sun Country a few times and have certainly appreciated the 

convenience of our local airport (Capitol City International Airport). Sun Country has provided a 

safe and reliable service each time that we have flown. Losing this airline option will most 

certainly affect the economic development efforts for the Lansing area. Lansing needs to be 

able to offer safe, reasonable, and comfortable flights - Sun Country fills this purpose. 

If the Washington D.C. option is lost I am concerned that Sun Country will not be able to survive 

with only the Minneapolis connection. If this service was to be discontinued and Sun Country 

would not be available at Capitol City International Airport this would limit the options that 

mid-Michigan passengers would have to travel West. Again, the damage to the Lansing area 

would be formidable as the airport and the area would suffer economically. 

Lansing needs to retain a sustainable airport service. Please consider the effects that 

discontinuing the Washington D.C. service would have for the Lansing area and the passengers 

who depend on the airport for flight options and keep this service available. The citizens of 

mid-Michigan would be most appreciative. 

Sincerely, 

Sue Settle 

3025 Pinto Circle 

Lansing, Michigan 48906
#### UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Frank MIANO, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 263.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit

Feb. 1, 1937.

Richard A. Grimm, of Buffalo, N. Y., for appellant.

George L. Grobe, U. S. Atty., of Buffalo, N. Y. (Robert M. Hitchcock, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Dunkirk, N. Y., of counsel), for the United States.

Before MANTON, AUGUSTUS N. HAND, and CHASE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Judgment affirmed in open court
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10(d)

                               SECOND AMENDMENT TO
                   AMERICAN REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT CORPORATION
                              AMENDED AND RESTATED
                           1993 OMNIBUS INCENTIVE PLAN

      WHEREAS, American Real Estate Investment Corporation,
predecessor-in-interest to Keystone Property Trust (the "Company"), adopted the
American Real Estate Investment Corporation Amended and Restated 1993 Omnibus
Incentive Plan (the "Original Plan") on December 11, 1998; and

      WHEREAS, the Original Plan was amended on April 14, 2002 by that certain
Amendment to American Real Estate Investment Corporation Amended And Restated
1993 Omnibus Incentive Plan (as so amended, the "Plan"); and

      WHEREAS, as of April 16, 2003, 1,236,477 Shares remain available under the
Plan; and

      WHEREAS, the Company desires to modify and add certain provisions to the
Plan to prohibit the repricing of Awards granted under the Plan as set forth
below.

      NOW, THEREFORE, the Company hereby further amends the Plan as follows:

      1. Section 3 of the Plan is hereby amended by adding the following
subsection at the end thereof:

            "(e) Other than as provided under Sections 4(b)(i), 7(c) and 7(d)
            hereof, and notwithstanding any other provision of the Plan to the
            contrary, the Board and Committee are expressly prohibited from
            effecting a re-pricing of any Award granted under the Plan, and,
            without limiting the foregoing, in no event shall the Board or
            Committee have the right to amend an outstanding Award to reduce the
            exercise price thereunder."

      2. Except as specifically amended hereby, the Plan shall remain in full
force and effect in accordance with the terms and conditions thereof.

      IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Second Amendment to be
signed by its duly authorized officer.

                                          KEYSTONE PROPERTY TRUST,
                                          successor-in-interest to American Real
                                          Estate Investment Corporation



                                          By: /s/ Robert F. Savage, Jr.
                                              ________________________________
                                              Name:  Robert F. Savage, Jr.
                                              Title: Executive Vice President
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 


FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 


DUHRING RESOURCE COMPANY 1 ) 

) 

Plaintiff l ) 

) 

and ) 

) 

PENNSYLVANIA OIL AND GAS ) 

ASSOCIATION 1 ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Intervenorl ) 

) 

v. ) Civil Action No. 07-314 Erie 

) 

THE UNITED STATES FOREST ) 

SERVICE 1 ) 

) 

Defendant 1 ) 

) 

and ) 

) 

ALLEGHENY DEFENSE PROJECT, ) 

) 

Defendant-Intervenor. ) 

ORDER 

Before the court is plaintiffs' motion to stay this 

lawsuit [Doc. No. 166] pending a final judgment in Minard Run Oil 

Co. v. U.S. Forest Service, No. 09 0125E (W.D. Pa.) (McLaughlin, 

J.) ("Minard Run 11")1 the resolution of which by Judge McLaughlin 

will resolve this case. In the interest of judicial economy, we 

will grant plaintiffs' motion for the reasons that follow. 

The dispositive legal issue in Minard Run II is identical 

to the one presented in this case. Defendants have both rightly 

asserted that there are no new legal arguments they can make that 

Case 1:07-cv-00314-GLL Document 182 Filed 02/01/10 Page 1 of 2
they did not make in Minard Run II before Judge McLaughlin 

regarding this issue. Plaintiff Duhring's claims pursuant to the 

Little Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a) (2), rise and fallon this 

same legal issue. Finally, given that defendants have not asserted 

a counterclaim or otherwise set forth any affirmative relief in 

this case, defendants will not be prejudiced by any delay in this 

litigation. 

Should the non-prevailing party in Minard Run II appeal 

Judge McLaughlin's final decision to the United States Court of 

Appeals for the Third Circuit, this administrative closing will 

extend pending a final disposition by the court of appeals. 

Nothing contained in this order shall be considered a 

dismissal or disposition of this matter, and should further 

proceedings in it become necessary or desirable, either party may 

initiate it in the same manner as if this order had not been 

entered. 

AND NOW, this 1st day of February, 2010, IT IS HEREBY 

ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to mark this case 

ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSED. 

BY THE COURT: 

Hot. ~~ GarytL. (i"J~C.J' ancaster, 


Chief United States District Judge 


cc: All Counsel of Record 

Case 1:07-cv-00314-GLL Document 182 Filed 02/01/10 Page 2 of 2
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 197 (Friday, October 10, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 52992]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-26920]



[[Page 52992]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. RP97-6-009]


Trunkline Gas Company; Notice of Compliance Filing

October 6, 1997.
    Take notice that on October 1, 1997, Trunkline Gas Company 
(Trunkline) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, First 
Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets to be effective 
November 1, 1997:

Sixth Revised Sheet No. 155
Seventh Revised Sheet No. 167
First Revised Sheet No. 167A
Original Sheet No. 167B
Second Revised Sheet No. 242A

    Trunkline asserts that the purpose of this filing is to comply with 
the Commission's Letter Order issued on June 11, 1997 in Docket No. 
RP97-6-006, which accepted the pro forma tariff sheets filed by 
Trunkline on May 1, 1997. That filing implemented the standards 
promulgated by the Gas Industry Standards Board, which were adopted by 
the Commission in Order No. 587-C in Docket No. RM96-1-004, Standards 
for Business Practices of Interstate Natural Gas Pipelines. The tariff 
sheets submitted reflect the pro forma tariff language accepted by the 
Commission and also incorporate by reference Standard 4.3.6, which was 
proposed for inclusion in Trunkline's tariff subsequent to the 
submission of the pro forma tariff sheets and accepted by the 
Commission's letter order dated July 23, 1997 in Docket No. RP97-6-007 
effective August 1, 1997.
    Trunkline states that copies of this filing are being served on all 
affected customers, applicable state regulatory agencies and parties to 
this proceeding.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the 
Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed as 
provided in Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests 
will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate 
action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to 
the proceeding. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission 
and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-26920 Filed 10-9-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
<TABLE> <S> <C>

        <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000








<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                     MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                            1,055
<SECURITIES>                      0
<RECEIVABLES>                    14,744
<ALLOWANCES>                        140
<INVENTORY>                       1,908
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                 18,905
<PP&E>                            3,900
<DEPRECIATION>                    1,677
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                   24,950
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>             8,703
<BONDS>                               0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                 0
<PREFERRED>                           0
<COMMON>                              5
<OTHER-SE>                       14,975
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>     24,950
<SALES>                          72,823
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                 72,859
<CGS>                              0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                    62,368
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                  9,922
<LOSS-PROVISION>                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                  177
<INCOME-PRETAX>                     391
<INCOME-TAX>                        168
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                 223
<DISCONTINUED>                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                       0
<CHANGES>                             0
<NET-INCOME>                        223
<EPS-BASIC>                       .05
<EPS-DILUTED>                       .05




</TABLE>
<PAGE>
                                                                      Exhibit 23

                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on
Form S-3 No. 333-42792-02 No. 333-65744 of NTL Communications Corp. (the
"Company") and in the related Prospectus of our report dated April 16, 2002,
with respect to the Company's consolidated financial statements as of December
31, 2001 and 2000 and for each of the three years in the period ended December
31, 2001, included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K).


                                                  /s/ Ernst & Young LLP




New York, New York
April 16, 2002
#### William P. BRODSKY, a minor, Appellant, v. Bru SMALL et al., Appellees.

Nos. 76-1046, 76-1052.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

July 19, 1977.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 8, 1977.

Wicker, Smith, Blomqvist, Davant, McMath, Tutan & O’Hara and Richard A. Sherman, Miami, for appellant.

Walton, Lantaff, Schroeder & Carson and George W. Chesrow, Pyszka, Kessler, Adams & Solomon, Richard M. Gale, Miami, for appellees.

Before BARKDULL, HAVERFIELD and HUBBART, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. *Jackson v. Florida Weathermakers, Inc.,*55 So.2d 575 (Fla.1951); *Otis Elevator Company*v. *Fontainebleau Hotel*
      *1196
      *Corp.,*137 So.2d 19 (Fla. 3rd D.C.A. 1962); *Nutt v. James City Inc.,*162 So.2d 700 (Fla. 3rd D.C.A. 1964); *Mansell v. Eidge,*179 So.2d 624 (Fla. 3rd D.C.A. 1965); *O’Brien v. Francis,*231 So.2d 13 (Fla. 3rd D.C.A. 1970); *North Shore Hospital v. Martin,*344 So.2d 256 (Fla. 3rd D.C.A. 1977).
### RE: owosso reports Gary Wood to: Christopher Lambesis Cc: "'Terri Zick'" 04/13/2010 08:24 AM

From:
To:
Cc: "Gary Wood" <woodgl@trimatrixiabs.com >

Christopher Lambesis/R5/USEPA/US@EPA "'Terri Zickm <tzick@cticompanies.com > Please respond to <woodgl©trimatrixlabs .com>

Chris,

We did not dry weight correct this sludge data so it is reported on an as received basis. We did not test these samples for percent solids.

Given that we analyzed for NMP as a TIC using method 8270C, by definition the reported concentrations are estimates.

Because we analyzed the raw product along with the sample, we had a very good comparison to work from so we are confident in our identification of NMP in these samples, although the reported values or concentrations should be viewed as estimates.

Gary Wood Senior Project Chemist TriMatrix Laboratories, Inc.

Corporate / Laboratory 5560 Corporate Exchange Court SE Grand Rapids, Michigan 49512 woodgl@trimatrixlabs.com Main: 616.975.4500 Direct: 616.940.4206
Fax: 616.942.7463 www.trimatrixlabs.com

The information contained in, or files attached to, this email is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed, and others who have been specifically authorized to receive it. This email and its attachments may contain information that is privileged, confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient nor the employee or agent responsible for delivery to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure,woodgl@trimatrixlabs.comuse of the contents of this email and its attachments without the consent of TriMatrix Laboratories, Inc. is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful.

Original Message From: Lambesis.Christopher@epamail.epa.gov (mailto:Lambesis.Christopher@epamail.epa.gov] Sent: Friday, April 09, 2010 6:55 PM To: woowoodgl@trimatrixlabs.com Subject: RE: owosso reports

Gary, Can you let me Zick'"if the latest set of Owosso samples analyzed woodgl@trimatrixlabsd in dry or "as-received" weight basis. Was percent solids performed? Thanks. -ChrisChristopher Lambesis

Environmental Scientist U.S EPA Region 5 Land and Chemicals Division (312) 886-3583
J. 

After considering "the canvass and the circumstances," the 

district court concluded that there was no evidence which suggested 

counsel "in any way" coerced Bennett into entering a plea and the record 

otherwise demonstrated that the plea was knowingly and voluntarily 

entered. See Crawford, 117 Nev. at 721-22, 30 P.3d at 1125-26 ("To 

determine whether the defendant advanced a substantial, fair, and just 

reason to withdraw a plea, the district court must consider the totality of 

the circumstances to determine whether the defendant entered the plea 

voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently."). Our review of the record 

supports these determinations. See id. • at 722, 30 P.3d at 1126 ("A 

thorough plea canvass coupled with a detailed, consistent, written plea 

agreement supports a finding that the defendant entered the plea 

voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently."). Moreover, Bennett failed to 

demonstrate that counsel was ineffective. See Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 

52, 58-59 (1985) (a petitioner must demonstrate that counsel's 

performance was deficient and but for counsel's errors he would not have 

pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial); Kirksey v. State, 

112 Nev. 980, 988, 923 P.2d 1102, 1107 (1996). Accordingly, we conclude 

that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Bennett's 

motion, and we 

ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED. 

Hardesty 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 2 

(0) 1947A 454M444 
cc: Hon. Kathleen E. Delaney, District Judge 

Monique A. McNeill 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Clark County District Attorney 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 3 

(0) 1947A
#### Carey LAW, Petitioner, v. Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, Director, Division of Corrections, State of Florida, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, Respondent.

No. 71-59.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Feb. 9, 1971.

Habeas corpus denied.
Exhibit 32.1

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO****18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,****AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO****SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Nicklebys.com, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report’), I, Scott Thornock, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

            (1)        The Report 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.   /s/ Scott Thornock                                             Scott Thornock			Chief Executive Officer			August 11, 2005

----
#### Donald LILIENTHAL, Appellant, v. TOWN OF LANTANA, Gilbert T. Brophy, Charles W. Brown, Richard P. Flodder, Charles W. Potter, L. Irving Ashauer, A. Vernon Jannotta, individually and severally, Appellees.

No. 69-331.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Fourth District.

Jan. 23, 1970.

John M. Callaway, Lake Worth, for appellant.

John E. Born, of Sholts, Adams & Born, West Palm Beach, for appellees Town of Lantana, Brown, Flodder, Potter, Ashauer and Jannotta.

*477John R. Beranek, of Jones, Adams, Paine & Foster, West Palm Beach, for appellee-Brophy.

PER CURIAM.

We have reviewed the briefs and record on appeal. The oral argument was waived. We conclude that the appellant has failed to sustain his burden of making error clearly appear; therefore, the final judgment from which this appeal has been taken is affirmed.

Affirmed.

CROSS, C. J., and REED and OWEN, JJ., concur.