alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
U.S. 

### Department of Transportation Office ofthe Secretary ofTransportation 1200 NewJersey Avenue, S.E. Washington, DC 20590
Mr. Marc W. Atwood Cozen 

### 0'Connor 1627 I St., NW, Ste. 1100 Washington, D.C. 20006 Issue date: August 21, 2014 Authority expires: September 29, 2014



### NOTICE OF CONSISTENCY Kalitta Air, L.L.C. is a properly certificated carrierthat holds authority to conduct charter operations to and from China. Based on a proposal submitted by the carrier, we have determined that the operations comply withthe applicable Departmentregulations and theprovisions ofthe 2014-2015 U.S.-China Protocol. 

### Number ofFlights: four (4) one-way charters 1 

### Flight Date(s): September 6, 13, 20, 27, 2014 

### Points: Shanghai (PVG)- Anchorage (ANC)*- Chicago (ORD) 

### Equipment: B747-400 BCF The U.S. carrier operating the above charter flight should report, inwriting, to the U.S. Air Carrier Licensing Division (X-44), Office ofInternational Aviation, Department ofTransportation, onits operation for the preceding month by the tenth ofeach month whether the flights operated. This notice is valid only for the flight contained inthe above program. *Denotes technical stop only. An electronic version ofthis document is available on the World Wide Web at: www.regulations.gov

1Following our grant ofAtlas Air Inc.'s request for four (4) one-way charter allocation, 70 one-way charter allocations remain available in the Zone 1 charter pool for the 2014/15 charter year.
## BILL OF COSTS

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, SIXTH DISTRICT, AT TEXARKANA

No. 06

- 14

- 00101

- CV

In the Matter of the Marriage of Emma Ruth Vinson and Ben Andrew Vinson, Sr.

(No. 2011

- 12

- 590

- CCL IN COUNTY COURT AT LAW OF RUSK COUNT Y)

TYPE OF FEE CHARGES PAID BY

MOTION FEE

SUPP REPORTER'S RECORD

SUPPLEMENTAL CLERK'S RECORD

MOTION FEE

MOTION FEE

MOTION FEE

CLERK'S RECORD

INDIGENT

SUPREME COURT CHAPTE R 51 FEE

FILING

STATEWIDE EFILING FE E

REPORTER'S RECORD $10.00

$160.00

$65.00

$10.00

$10.00

$10.00

$58.00

$2 5.00

$50.00

$100.00

$20.00

$767.50 E

- PAID

UNKNOWN

PAID

E

- PAID

E

- PAID

E

- PAID

PAID

PAID

PAID

PAID

PAID

UNKNOWN MARIAN TAYLOR

JOE SHUMATE

JOE SHUMATE

MARIAN TAYLOR

MARIAN TAYLOR

MARIAN TAYLOR

JOE SHUMATE

JOE SHUMATE

JOE SHUMATE

JOE SHUMATE

JOE SHUMATE

JOE SHUMATE



### Balance of costs owing to the Sixth Court of Appeals, Texarkana, Texas: 0.00

Court costs in this cause shall be paid as per the Judgment issued by this Court.

I, DEBRA AUTREY, CLERK OF THE SIXTH COURT OF APPEALS OF THE

STATE OF TEXAS, do he reby certify that the above and foregoing is a true and correct

copy of the cost bill of THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH DISTRICT OF

TEXAS, showing the charges and payments, in the above numbered and styled cause,

as the same appears of record in this o ffice.

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF,

witness my hand and the Seal of

the COURT OF APPEALS for

the Sixth District of Texas, this

October 21, 2015

.

DEBRA AUTREY, CLERK

By ___

________________________ Deputy
#### Rayford Norman JACKSON, alias v. STATE.

1 Div. 719.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

July 26, 1977.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 4, 1977.

Neil L. Hanley, Mobile, for appellant.

William J. Baxley, Atty. Gen., and Linda C. Breland, Asst. Atty. Gen for the State.

SIMMONS, Retired Circuit Judge.

Now comes defendant and moves this Court for a statement of facts. We respond as follows:

Defendant was indicted by the Mobile County grand jury for burglary in the second degree. He entered a plea of not guilty and not guilty by reason of insanity. He was tried before a jury and convicted. The sentence was fixed at ten years.

As we understand the record, defendant at nisi prius was represented by employed counsel. However, on this appeal he established indigency and the Court appointed counsel to represent him. The same lawyers who represented him at nisi prius represent him on this appeal.

Defendant, just prior to trial, made an oral motion for mental examination by a psychiatrist. The trial court, without the aid of a jury, heard the motion. No demand was made for a jury. (R. 25, 26, 27).

Defendant took the stand and testified at length, on direct and cross. (R. 27-32).

At the conclusion of the hearing the Court made a finding and order as follows:

> “The Court is of the opinion in observing the defendant that he is intelligent, he is aware of what he is doing, is a condition — from the observation of the Court — to assist counsel and he is competent in the opinion of the Court to stand trial at this time. So, that would be the ruling of the Court.

> “Now, are you going to note an exception to the Court’s ruling?

> “Mr. HANLEY: Yes, sir.

> “THE COURT: All right.”

On the merits, it appears from the State’s evidence that Sammy Brown, a Mobile police officer, responded to a burglar alarm at English Drug Store (R. 46). The owner went to the store and opened the door for Officer Brown. They found the defendant inside the store with drugs and matches on his person. Defendant did not take the stand before the jury.

After the State rested defense counsel moved for a mistrial on the ground that defendant had a right to have the jury *716determine whether he was competent to stand trial (R. 61). The motion was denied.

Petition granted for statement of facts. Application for rehearing overruled.

The foregoing opinion was prepared by the Honorable Bowen W. Simmons, a retired Circuit Judge, serving as a Judge of this Court, under the provisions of § 6.10, of the new Judicial Article (Constitutional Amendment No. 328); his opinion is hereby adopted as that of the Court.

APPLICATION OVERRULED.

All the Judges concur.
Exhibit 99.8    MANAGEMENTS RESPONSIBILITY FOR FINANCIAL INFORMATION  Sprott Asset Management LP, the Manager of the Sprott Physical Gold Trust (the Fund) is responsible for the integrity, consistency, objectivity and reliability of the Financial Statements of the Fund. International Financial Reporting Standards have been applied and management has exercised its judgment and made best estimates where appropriate.  The Managers internal controls and supporting procedures maintained provide reasonable assurance that financial records are complete and accurate. These supporting procedures include the oversight of RBC Dexia, the Funds valuation agent.  Management has assessed the effectiveness of the internal controls over financial reporting as at December 31, 2010 using the framework found in Internal Control  Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission. Based upon this assessment, management has concluded that as at December 31, 2010 the Managers internal controls over financial reporting were effective.  Ernst & Young LLP, the independent auditors appointed by the Manager of the Trust, have audited the effectiveness of the Trusts internal control over financial reporting as at December 31, 2010 in addition to auditing the Trusts Financial Statements as of the same date. Their reports, which expressed an unqualified opinion, can be found on pages 2 to 3 of the Financial Statements. Ernst & Young have full and free access to, and meet periodically with, the Manager of the Trust to discuss their audit and matters arising there from, such as, comments they may have on the fairness of financial reporting and the adequacy of internal controls.   Steven Rostowsky Chief Financial Officer Sprott Asset Management LP March 11, 2011
#### Fred ROEHNER, Soll Roehner, Melvin T. Goldberger, Dean Moses and Earl Worsham d/b/a Regency Highland Associates, Petitioners, v. ATLANTIC COAST DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Respondent.

No. 77-682.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Jan. 4, 1978.

*926Dana C. Ferrell of Byrd & Ferrell, P. A., Fort Lauderdale, for petitioners.

No appearance for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order denying a motion to dismiss an action to foreclose an equitable lien. Review in this case should have been initiated by interlocutory appeal rather than application for a writ of certiorari. However, we will treat the petition as an interlocutory appeal and proceed to the merits.

The respondent filed an action to foreclose an equitable lien and for legal damages. The petitioners filed a motion to dismiss the equitable lien action alleging that the complaint on its face showed that the lien action was barred by the statute of limitations. A defense based on the statute of limitations can be asserted in a motion to dismiss if the facts constituting the defense appear on the face of the complaint. *Poulos v. Vordermeier,*327 So.2d 245 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976). Here such facts do appear on the face of the complaint, and the motion to dismiss should have been granted as to the equitable lien with the action for damages remaining as a separate cause of action. Accordingly, the order of the trial court denying the motion to dismiss the equitable lien action is hereby reversed with directions that an order be entered in accordance with this opinion.

REVERSED WITH DIRECTIONS.

ALDERMAN, C. J., and DOWNEY and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur.
ANGUS S. KfNG, JR. MAINE

DmKs<w S$NATI' OFHa l202l**ZE~lil!44**

Mr. Kevin Schlemmer Chief, Essential Air Service Program U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200NewJerseyAvenue, SE Washington, DC 20590

DearMr. Schlemmer: March 27,2014 MMEO SERVICES Bl:JClG€T INIE:lLI!JENC€ IlLitES ANDADM!IIi!STAATJON

I understand thatPeninsulaAirways, Inc; (PenAir) has submitted a proposal in response to a Request for Proposal (RFP) for Essential Air Service (EAS) flights between Presque Isle, Maine, and Boston, Massachusetts.

PenAir is a regional airline that flies nearly 45 flights perweek in the eastern United States. The company, which was founded in 1955, has providedreliable air service to Presque 1sle and Bar Harbor since soon after it won an Essential Air Service (EAS) contractto serve those communities in early 2012. I am aware that PenAir has announced its intentionto continue serving BarHarbor without subsidy should the company again win the EAS contracts to serve Presque Isle and Plattsburg, New York.

I recognize thatthis is a competitive RFP and simply request that you give PenAir's proposal every ?tppropriate consideration in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations. Also, I ask that you please keep me informed ofthe status ofthis process. Ifyou have any questions or concerns, please contact Adam Lachman or Alex Porter in my office at (202) 224-5344.



# - lNG, JR. United States Senator
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 v. 

ISMELDA SANCHEZ, 

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-50051 

D.C. No. 3:14-cr-02804-LAB

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California

Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 18, 2017**

Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

Ismelda Sanchez appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges 

the 68-month sentence imposed upon remand following her guilty-plea conviction 

for importation of heroin and methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 

and 960. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

DEC 22 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 17-50051 

Sanchez contends that the district court erred by denying her request for a

minor role reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. We review the district court’s 

interpretation of the Guidelines de novo, and its application of the Guidelines to 

the facts of the case for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Gasca-Ruiz, 852 

F.3d 1167, 1170 (9th Cir. 2017) (en banc). 

Sanchez argues that the district court failed to compare her to two of her coparticipants in the offense, and incorrectly concluded that she was not entitled to a 

minor role adjustment under the amended Guideline. The record reflects that the 

court compared Sanchez to all of the co-participants she identified, and found that 

Sanchez was not “substantially less culpable than the average participant.” 

U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 cmt. n.3(A). In light of the totality of the circumstances,

including Sanchez’s prior drug smuggling activity, the district court did not abuse 

its discretion in denying the reduction. See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 cmt. n.3(C); GascaRuiz, 852 F.3d at 1170.

AFFIRMED.
* 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. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED August 20, 2003 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-40423 Conference Calendar

BERNARD VINCENT MONTGOMERY, Petitioner-Appellant,

versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent-Appellee.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:03-CV-61

-------------------- Before JONES, WIENER, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Bernard Vincent Montgomery, federal prisoner # 53653-146, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition challenging the validity of his convictions for methamphetamine manufacture, importation, and distribution. He asserts that his sentence is invalid in light of Jones v. United
States , 526 U.S. 227 (1999). Because Montgomery is challenging the method by which his sentence was calculated, rather than the execution of his sentence, the district court correctly construedNo. 03-40423 -2- his petition as a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. See Jeffers v. Chandler , 253 F.3d 827, 830 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 534 U.S. 1001 (2001). Montgomery has not established that his Jones claim satisfies the test for filing a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition under the “savings clause” of 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See Jones , 526 U.S. at 251 n.11; see also Wesson v. U.S. Penitentiary Beaumont, Tex. , 305 F.3d 343, 347-48 (5th Cir. 2002), cert. denied , 123 S. Ct. 1374 (2003); In re Tatum , 233 F.3d 857, 859 (5th Cir. 2000). The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 227 (Tuesday, November 25, 1997)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 62693]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-30966]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Commodity Credit Corporation

7 CFR Part 1437

RIN 0560-AF23


Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance Program; Correction

AGENCY: Commodity Credit Corporation, USDA.

ACTION: Interim rule with request for comments; correction.

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

SUMMARY: In the interim rule published in the Federal Register on 
October 17, 1997 (62 FR 53929) the comment period was inadvertently 
omitted. This correction announces the comment period.

DATES: The interim rule was effective on October 17, 1997. Comments on 
this rule must be received on or before January 26, 1998 to be assured 
of consideration.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be mailed to Sean O'Neill, Chief, Noninsured 
Assistance Branch (NAB), Production, Emergencies, and Compliance 
Division (PECD), Farm Service Agency (FSA), United States Department of 
Agriculture, STOP 0517, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 
20250-0526; telephone (202) 720-9003.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean O'Neill, Chief, Noninsured 
Assistance Branch (NAB), Production, Emergencies, and Compliance 
Division (PECD), Farm Service Agency (FSA), United States Department of 
Agriculture, STOP 0517, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 
20250-0526; telephone (202) 720-9003.

    Signed at Washington, DC, on November 18, 1997.
Keith Kelly,
Executive Vice President, Commodity Credit Corporation.
[FR Doc. 97-30966 Filed 11-24-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-05-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                          19,755
<SECURITIES>                                     2,450
<RECEIVABLES>                                  175,793
<ALLOWANCES>                                     5,284
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               207,836
<PP&E>                                          32,157
<DEPRECIATION>                                  10,922
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 328,465
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           59,313
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,235
<OTHER-SE>                                     253,873
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   328,465
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               281,015
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  186,550
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                65,817
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 390
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 29,038
<INCOME-TAX>                                    12,278
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             16,760
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    16,760
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.54
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.53


</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

PATRICK CHRISTIAN, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Civil Action No. 2 4

- 0149 (UNA)

)

JOSEPH BIDEN, et al

. , )

)

Defendant s

. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Under the statute governing in forma pauperis proceedings, the Court is required to

dismiss a case “at any time” it determines that the action is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a

claim upon which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) . He re, h aving reviewed the

complaint carefully, the Court cannot discern what claim or claims p laintiff intends to bring

.

The caption may suggest a civil rights conspiracy claim, yet the few factual allegations set forth

in the complaint fall far short of st ating a viable claim , rendering the complaint subject to

dismissal

. S ee McGuire v. U.S. Dist rict Court , No. 10

- cv

- 0 696, 2010 WL 1855858, at *1

(D.D.C. May 4, 2010) (summarily dismissing complaint under § 1915(e)(2) because it was

“ largely incoherent and nonsensica l”); cf. Neitzke v. Williams , 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989) (“[A]

complaint, containing

. . . factual allegations and legal conclusions

. . . lack [ing] an arguable

basis either in law or in fact” shall be dismissed

. )

. As a result, the complaint fails to comply with

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8 and 12(b)(6).

The Court will grant plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the

complaint without prejudice. A separate order will issue.

DATE: March 18, 2024 RANDOLPH D. MOSS

United States District Judge
|     |                                                                                                                       |
|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| (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 results of operations of the Registrant. |

|                                           |
|-------------------------------------------|
|                                           |
| /s/ Ross A. Teune                         |
| Name: Ross A. Teune                       |
| Title:  Chief Financial Officer |
Item 77M - DWS International Fund (the
"Fund"), a series of DWS International Fund,
Inc. (the "Registrant")

1.  Registrant incorporates by reference its
Registration Statement on Form N-14, filed on
December 22, 2006 (Accession No.
0001193125-06-258876)

Shareholder Meeting Results:

A Special Meeting of Shareholders of DWS
Pacific Opportunities Equity Fund was held on
March 15, 2007.  The following matter was
voted upon by the shareholders of said fund (the
resulting votes are presented below):

Approval of a proposed conversion of shares of
each class of Pacific Opportunities Equity Fund
into shares of the corresponding class of the
Fund.  In this conversion, shares of Pacific
Opportunities Equity Fund would be converted
into shares of the Fund with an equal aggregate
net asset value.

Affirmative
	4,057,346.747
Against
959,228.258
Abstain
175,690.263



2.  Registrant incorporates by reference its
Registration Statement on Form N-14, filed on
January 24, 2007 (Accession No. 0001193125-
07-011294)

Shareholder Meeting Results:

A Special Meeting of Shareholders of DWS
International Equity Fund was held on May 30,
2007.  The following matter was voted upon by
the shareholders of said fund (the resulting votes
are presented below):

Approving an Agreement and Plan of
Reorganization and the transaction it
contemplates, including the transfer of all of the
assets of DWS International Equity Fund, a
series of DWS Advisor Funds, to the Fund, in
exchange for shares of the Fund and the
assumption by the Fund of all liabilities of DWS
International Equity Fund, and the distribution
of such shares, on a tax-free basis, to the
shareholders of DWS International Equity Fund.

Affirmative
	3,882,097.837
Against
221,361.811
Abstain
153,685.688
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED AU GUST 23, 2013

NO. 03

- 13

- 00039

- CR

Pedro Javier Quintero, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM 421ST DISTRICT COURT OF CALDWELL COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES PURYEAR, ROSE AND GOODWIN

AFFIRMED

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE ROSE

THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the record of the court below, and the same being

considered, it is the opinion of this Court that there was no error in the judgment of conviction.

IT IS THEREFORE OR DERED that the judgment of conviction is in all things affirmed; and

it appearing that the appellant is indigent and unable to pay costs, that no adjudication as to costs

is made

, and that this decision be certified below for observance.