alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
November3, 2014

Mr. Michael F. Martin US Dept. ofTransportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE Washington, DC 20590 Dear Mr. Martin, Western Nebraska Regional Airport in Scottsbluff, Nebraska desperately needs essential air service on a daily basis to Denver, Colorado and other regional airports. Denver is a nearly4 hour drive from Scottsbluff. Many depend on air service to connectwith outbound flights from Denver International Airport. We live in a region with unpredictable and severe weather and often the roads to Denver are dangerous at best and sometimes completely closed. Flying to Denver is often the only feasible way to .travel there._ ·_ MC;lny people in our community with serious health conditions need flight service for medical appointments ·in Denver, including our region's military veterans, some ofwho sustained serious injuries in the recent**war~** overseas. Finally, business and professional people-including medical and education personnel-depend on flights to Denverto save time and moneywhen attending meetings and professional development conferences. This includes employees of Regional West Medical Centerand Western Nebraska Community College. So much time and money is saved when we are able to fly out of Scottsbluff instead ofdriving to Denver, paying for parking and possibly overnig_hts in**h~ot~ls ju~t**  .to rnake connecting with**flfghts·out'of'DIA~poSsible:·-** ·· 

### ···<' :**,-~.:'** 

### · . <. ::':V ·'**--~,** 1 

### w""'··'-· 1 

### v'· '·' · Western Nebraska Regional Airport held a special board·h1eet1ii_9 tcPdiscuss1the Essential Air Service Please supportthe bid of AerodynamicsInc. (ADI). ADi's 

## bid**wa~** $3.64 million for a 50 passengerflight that would run a 20-25 minute flight to Denver International Airport twicea day, Monday through Friday and once a day on Saturday and Sunday. The company**isJJ?.se,~** .?utofAtlanta and has a corporate office in Cleveland. ADI is also pursuing contracts in North Platte and

### Ke~fr'ney. . 

### Thank you·for.youi'time and attentio ,to Essential Air Service, f_or.

### Vlfe.~tern: Nebraska,

.,. .·,: i 'l**-~** '\
. 'I • ' i '· ··. •··;: H ' l: , , ,**~** 1 !,; : "'-• , ,

. ".·.



## .' PO Box 945 · ' ' '
.. ' ! ( • ; i•J •.. .**~"** :'
. Scottsbluff, NE 69363

. ;,..·.. i
··t;-,;··
-.. -.1.
. . 54 

-. 

OFFlCE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

Eon. Ernest ouilul 

County Attorney, El Peso County 

31 Paso, Texas 

3ear t33.r: 

'se have your req 

guest is a6 r0ii0lw: 

For tea 

but said oert 

et seq., Acts of the 48th 

ovide for the issuance 

rtiticate3 to the menbers of the 

hersin, under certain naarued coxlitio54 

s. by force of the term of mid legislative 

enao2men-l ltselr, aan-onijr be issued *.Lfter the United States 

of diaerioa has ceased %a groseoutlon of the"uar and has ooneluded a pea68 rith all of her eneki.es oomonl;r known aa the 

Ad.3 ~oasrs. * 

iCT!%T 

(3ee Aots Regular Session, 48t% Leg., Ch. 336, 
Hon. &nest -inn, page a 

The sreiaption frow the payziiiant of poll taxeo 

provl&ed for in said legislative anaotmant just mentioned 

is not as yet available to the members of the A.ruc& Poraes 

of the United States who are mentionad in said law, and 

will not be so available to them until “tha Uni%ed 3tat3s 

of Amerioa has oaased tha proseautioa of the presant xar 

and has ooncluded a peace with all of her ez~emies,* etc. 

If, by the term *!iri~cd Forces,: as us&l by you 

in your request for an opinion, you refer to the member8 

of. the at-ftivc militia of the State of Texas, then we believe 

your question is fully answared by our Opinion 240. O-5043, 

a aopp of rhfch is coalosed for TOUP information. 

Trusting are have given you the Information 

desired, we are 

Yours rery truly
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-2337

DENNIS R. COOKISH, Plaintiff- Appellant, versus KEYSTONE FINANCIAL BANK, N.A., formerly known as American Trust Bank, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson E. Legg, District Judge. (CA-99- 2209-L) Submitted: December 16, 1999 Decided: December 21, 1999Before MURNAGHAN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dennis R. Cookish, Appellant Pro Se. William Stuart Heyman, GORDON, FEINBLATT, ROTHMAN, HOFFBERGER & HOLLANDER, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* Although the district court’s orders are marked as “filed” on August 10, 1999 and September 13, 1999, the district court’s records show that they were entered on the docket sheet on August 11, 1999, and September 15, 1999, respectively. Pursuant to Rules 58 and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the date that was entered on the docket sheet that we take as the effective date of the district court’s decision. See Wilson v. Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986). 2 PER CURIAM: Dennis R. Cookish appeals two district court orders dismissing his complaint filed pursuant to the Right to Financial Privacy Actas frivolous under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915(e) (West Supp. 1999) and denying his subsequent motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Cookish v. Keystone Financial , No. CA-99-2209-L (D. Md. Aug. 11 & Sept. 15, 1999). * We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
II

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1063

To amend the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 to clarify

the treatment of a qualified football coaches plan.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MAY 28 (legislative day, APRIL 19), 1993

Mr. HATCH (for himself and Mr. BREAUX) introduced the following bill; which

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources

A BILL

To amend the Employee Retirement Income Security Act

of 1974 to clarify the treatment of a qualified football

coaches plan.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 (a) SHORT TITLE.—This Act may be cited as the

5 ‘‘Qualified Football Coaches Plan Technical Corrections

6 Act of 1993’’.
2

S 1063 IS

1 SEC. 2. CLARIFICATIONS OF PUBLIC LAW 100–202.

2 Section 1022 of title II of the Employee Retirement

3 Income Security Act of 1974 is amended by adding at the

4 end there of the following new submission:

5 ‘‘(l) QUALIFIED FOOTBALL COACHES PLAN.—For

6 purposes of determining the qualified plan status of a

7 qualified football coaches plan, section 3(37)(F) shall be

8 treated as part of this title and a qualified football coaches

9 plan shall be treated as a multiemployer collectively bar10 gained plan for purposes of title II of the Employee Re11 tirement Income Security Act of 1974’’.

12 SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

13 The amendment made by this Act shall apply to years

14 beginning after the enactment of Public Law 100–202.

Æ
<PAGE>   1
                                EXHIBIT (21)-1-

                       COMPANIES OWNED BY UNIMAR COMPANY


       The following is a list of companies owned, directly and indirectly, by
Unimar Company, together with their respective jurisdictions of incorporation.
In each case, all of the outstanding voting securities of each company listed
are owned by the company indicated by indentation as its parent, except as
otherwise noted.


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                  State of
                                                                Incorporation
                                                                -------------
<S>                                                               <C>
Unimar Company (a General Partnership under The
       Texas Uniform Partnership Act)
              ENSTAR Corporation.                                 Delaware
                     VICO 7.5, Inc.                               Delaware
                            Virginia Indonesia Company            Delaware
                                   Virginia Services, Inc.        Delaware
                                   Virginia Services, Ltd.        Delaware
                                   Purchasing Services, Inc.      Delaware
                     ENSTAR Indonesia, Inc.                       Delaware
                            Virginia International Company        Delaware
                     ENSTAR Petroleum Ltd.                        Canada
</TABLE>
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Norman Harold JONES.

No. 53576.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 21, 1973.

In re: Norman Harold Jones applying for writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus and habeas corpus.

Granted.

(See order.)

The petition of the relator in the above entitled and numbered case having been duly considered,

It is ordered that a writ of certiorari issue herein, directing the Honorable Elmo E. Lear, Judge of the Nineteenth Judicial *202District, Court for the Parish of East Baton Rouge, to transmit to the Supreme Court of Louisiana, on or before the 15th day of August, 1973, the record in duplicate, or a certified copy of the record in duplicate, of the proceedings complained of by the relator herein, to the end that the validity of said proceedings may be ascertained.

It is further ordered that the aforesaid Judge of said Court and the respondent through counsel shall show cause, in this court, on the 2nd day of October, 1973, at 10 o’clock A.M., why the relief prayed for in the petition of the relator should not be granted.
EXHIBIT 11 - STATEMENT RE: COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS.

EARNINGS (LOSS) PER COMMON SHARE: Basic EPS excludes dilution and is
computed by dividing income available to common stockholders by the
weighted-average number of common shares outstanding for the period.
Diluted EPS reflects the potential dilution that could occur if
securities or other contracts to issue common stock were exercised or
converted into common stock or resulted in the issuance of common stock
that then shared in the earnings of the entity.  The primary weighted
average number of common shares outstanding was 5,539,749, 5,577,694,
and 5,521,283 for the years ended December 31, 1999, 1998, and 1997
respectively.
                                    For the Year Ended 1999
                            ---------------------------------------
                             Income           Shares      Per-Share
                           (Numerator)     (Denominator)     Amount
                           ----------      -------------  ----------
BASIC EPS
Income available to common
   stockholders            $    52,301        5,539,749   $     0.01
                           ===========     =============  ==========
DILUTED EPS
Income available to common
  stockholder + assumed
    conversion             $    52,301        5,593,667   $     0.01
                           ===========     =============  ==========
EXHIBIT 31.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO  EXCHANGE ACT RULES 13a-14 OR 15d-14  AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO  SECTION 302 OF SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I,
Robert C. Leahy, Vice President of Finance and Operations of Brooktrout, Inc., certify that:

|                    |  |     |                                                                                                                        
|------------------- |  | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: March 9, 2004 |  | By: | /s/ROBERT C. LEAHYRobert C. Leahy Vice President of
Finance and Operations (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)

---

QuickLinks
#### Mary Ellen Sheehan PEREZ v. Chalin O. PEREZ.

No. 9677.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.

June 14, 1978.

Writ Refused July 3, 1978.

Edmond H. Fitzmaurice, Jr., for relator.

Tucker, Schonekas & Garrison, Gibson Tucker, Jr., New Orleans, for respondent.

Before REDMANN, LEMMON and BOUTALL, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

This is an application for supervisory writs, involving the question of venue and jurisdiction in a rule for child custody brought by the mother in Orleans Parish after a divorce judgment silent as to custody was rendered in Plaquemines Parish, where the father presently resides. At the *1137time the rule was filed the child was living with the mother in Orleans Parish.

The father filed exceptions to the venue and to the jurisdiction of the Orleans court. After the trial court overruled the exceptions, the father applied to this court for supervisory writs.

The Louisiana courts have jurisdiction over the status in an action to obtain the custody of a minor domiciled in the state. C.C.P. art. 10(5). The related question of venue involves the determination of the proper parish in which the action may be brought.

There is no specific provision in the Code of Civil Procedure governing venue in custody actions. Such an action incidental to an action for separation or divorce is generally brought in the parish of proper venue for the principal action. However, when the initial fixing of custody occurs after divorce, the venue of the action to obtain custody is determined by reference to the law governing tutorship proceedings, since custody of the minor is one of the elements of tutorship. C.C.P. art. 4261. Venue in tutorship proceedings lies in the parish where the minor resides. C.C.P. art. 4031.

The judgment correctly overruled the exceptions, and the application is denied.

*APPLICATION DENIED.*
<PAGE>   1
                                  EXHIBIT 99.0

Independent Auditors' Opinion for year ended December 31, 1996 as provided by 
Deloitte & Touche LLP.

Habersham Bancorp
Its Shareholders and Directors

We have audited the accompanying consolidated statements of income, 
stockholders' equity, and cash flows of Habersham Bancorp for the year ended 
December 31, 1996. These financial statements are the responsibility of 
Company's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these 
financial statements based on our audit.

We conducted our audit in accordance with generally accepted auditing 
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 
reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of 
material misstatement. An audit also includes examining, on a test basis, 
evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An 
audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant 
estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial 
statement presentation. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis 
for our opinion.

In our opinion, such consolidated financial statements present fairly, in all 
material respects, the results of operations and cash flows of Habersham 
Bancorp for the year ended December 31, 1996 in conformity with generally 
accepted accounting principles.

DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Atlanta, Georgia
January 17, 1997
#### Succession of Curtis D. TURNER, Plaintiff-Relator. Rosa Batts JOHNSON, Defendant-Respondent, v. NORTHEASTERN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF TEXAS.

No. 4167.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.

Dec. 28, 1972.

Cabral & Cabral, Harry R. Cabral, Jr., Metairie, for plaintiff-relator.

Richard B. Wilkins, Jr., Alexandria, Silas B. Cooper, Abbeville, for defendant-respondent.

Before SAVOY, MILLER and DO-MENGEAUX, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

This is an application to our supervisory jurisdiction praying for reinstatement of a preliminary injunction and the annulment of the trial court’s award for damages in the form of attorney’s fees for the wrongful issuance of the injunction.

The Relator brought suit in the Twenty-Fourth Judicial District Court for the Parish of Jefferson to obtain a temporary restraining order and thereafter a preliminary injunction. A restraining order was *472issued on July 31, 1972, and in due course, the court issued a preliminary injunction, which judgment was signed on September 1, 1972.

Thereafter, the Respondent, Mrs. Rosa Batts Johnson, through her attorney, filed an exception of venue to the proceedings in the Twenty-Fourth Judicial District Court, and after a hearing on October S, 1972, that Court maintained the exception of venue and ordered the proceedings transferred from that Court to the Ninth Judicial District Court for the Parish of Rapides, which judgment was signed on October 12, 1972.

The respondent, Mrs. Rosa Batts Johnson, then petitioned the Ninth Judicial District Court to dissolve the preliminary injunction alleging that the restraining order and preliminary injunction were improvidently issued and asked for damages and attorney’s fees. This matter was heard before the Ninth Judicial District Court on December 18, 1972, and the Court therein issued a judgment dissolving the preliminary injunction and awarded the Respondent attorney’s fees in the amount of $500.00. It is from this judgment that Relator seeks our supervisory jurisdiction.

 The Relator has not sought to appeal from the judgment of the trial court dissolving the preliminary injunction as is his right under LSA-C.C.P. Art. 3612. This article provides for appeals from orders or judgments relating to interlocutory preliminary injunctions.

An application for supervisory relief will be denied when the Relator has failed to seek appropriate relief by available appellate procedures, but instead attempts to secure such relief via the supervisory jurisdiction. Morris v. Transtates Petroleum, Inc., 234 So.2d 243 (La.App. 2nd Cir.1970), affirmed 258 La. 311, 246 So.2d 183 (1971); Cloud v. Bushnell, 168 So.2d 275 (La.App. 3rd Cir.1964).

The application for supervisory writs is therefore denied.

Writs denied.
2/10/2015 TDCJ Offender Details 

# 42/^2-^/ ndmi.uji^MJn*iAijiM»HwimjUj ej TDC'J Home 

# Offender Information Details

Return to Search list

SID Number: TDCJ Number: Name: Race: Gender: DOB: Maximum Sentence Date: 

### Current Facility: 

### Projected Release Date: Parole Eligibility Date: 

### Offender Visitation Eligible: 04468796 01962628 BELLJIMOTHY LAWRENCE W M 1970-08-20 2017-03-23 COLE 2015-08-13 2014-07-28 YES 

### Informationprovided is updated once daily during weekdays and multiple times per day 

### on visitation days. Because this information is subject to change, family members and 

### friends are encouraged to call the unitprior to travelingfor a visit.

SPECIAL INFORMATION FOR SCHEDULED RELEASE: Scheduled Release Date: 

### Scheduled Release Type: Scheduled Release Location: 2015-02-13 Parole to Detainer HUNTSVILLE Scheduled release date, type, and unitmay change withoutnotice. Therefore, it is highly recommended that you revisit this website to verify the release information prior to departing to pick up any offender. This information applies only to prison sentenced offenders and does not include State Jail or Substance Abuse offenders. The primaryrelease sites for prison sentenced offenders are the Huntsville Unit (men) and the Gatesville Unit (women). Releasing at the primary release sites is from 8 a.m. until 5 p.m., however, it is recommended that, ifyou are picking up a released offender from a primaryrelease site, you arrive at the primaryrelease site by 9 a.m. Offenders released from a primaryrelease site will receive bus vouchers. If the offenderis not released from a primaryrelease site, http://offender.tdcj .state.tx.us/OffenderSearch/offenderDetail.action?sid=04468796' New Offender Search

1/22/10/2015 TDCJ Offender Details contact the releasing unit for releasing time information. 

# Parole ReviewInformation Offense History: Offense „„ Sentence

_ , ~ . .. Sentence (YY-MM-

~ , Otiense •

_ , County Case No. ,_^\ 

### Date Date. J uO} 2009-09-27 OBSTRUCT/RETALIATION 2014-10-27 COLLIN 4168265109 3-00-00 2009-09-27 DWIW/CHILD< 15YOA 2014-10-27 COLLIN 4168265009 1-06-00

Return to Search list


### The Texas Department ofCriminalJustice updates thisinformation regularlyto ensure thatitis complete and accurate, however this information can change quickly: Therefore, the information on this site may not reflect the true current location, status, scheduled termination date, or other information regarding an offender. 

### For questions and comments, you may contact the Texas DepartmentofCriminalJustice, at (936) 295-6371 or webadminGpldcj.texas.gov. This information is made available to the public and law enforcement in the interest ofpublic safety. Any unauthorized use ofthis information is forbidden and subject to criminalprosecution. 

### New Offender Search TDCJ Home Page

http://offender.tdcj.state.tx.us/OffenderSearch/offenderDetail.action?sid=04468796 2/2
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 722 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 722

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                    September 16, 2014.
    Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to 
consider in the House the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 124) making continuing 
appropriations for fiscal year 2015, and for other purposes. All points of order 
against consideration of the joint resolution are waived. The amendment printed 
in part A of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution 
shall be considered as adopted. The joint resolution, as amended, shall be 
considered as read. All points of order against provisions in the joint 
resolution, as amended, are waived. The previous question shall be considered as 
ordered on the joint resolution, as amended, and on any further amendment 
thereto to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of 
debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member 
of the Committee on Appropriations; (2) the further amendment printed in part B 
of the report of the Committee on Rules, if offered by Representative McKeon of 
California or his designee, which shall be in order without intervention of any 
point of order, shall be considered as read, shall be separately debatable for 
six hours equally divided and controlled by Representative McKeon of California 
and Representative Smith of Washington or their respective designees, and shall 
not be subject to a demand for division of the question; and (3) one motion to 
recommit with or without instructions.
    Sec. 2.  Section 4(c) of House Resolution 567 is amended by adding the 
following new paragraph:
            ``(7) The provisions of paragraphs (f)(1) through (f)(12) of clause 
        4 of rule XI shall be considered to be written rules adopted by the 
        Select Committee as though pursuant to such clause.''.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
**Exhibit 31(c)2**

 

 

**GEORGIA POWER COMPANY**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

 

 

I, Cliff S. Thrasher, certify that:

| 1. | I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A of Georgia Power Company; and |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report. |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

Date:  January 26, 2009

/s/Cliff S. Thrasher

Cliff S. Thrasher

Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer