alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NEIL ABERCROMBIE

GOVERNOR OF HAWAII LORETTA J. FUDDY, A.C.S.W., M.P.H.

DIRECTOR OF HEALTH

STATE OF HAWAII

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH

P. o. BOX 4444

KALAUPAPA, HI 96742

In reply. please refer to:

File:

October 23,2013

Kevin D. Schlemmer, Chief

Essential Air Service & Domestic Analysis Division

U.S. Department of Transportation

1200 New Jerseys Ave, SE

Washington, DC 20590

.~._)

Dear Mr. Schlemmer:

The Federal Aviation Administration has advertised for an Essential Air Service (EAS) provider

for service to and from Kalaupapa Settlement on the Island of Molokai in Hawaii, Order 2013-

10-3 for service beginning January 14,2013. EAS has provided the opportunity for Kalaupapa

residents and visitors to travel to and from the Settlement. The economy the EAS has brought to

the price of tickets has been essential to connect the ageing patient population and growing

support population with the outside world and to bring guests to this very significant historical

and religious Hawaiian site.

Makani Kai has provided superior service to the Kalaupapa Settlement for the past 2 years.

Makani Kai worked closely with the community to provide optimum service and allowed a

resident rate for travel that has allowed and encourage connection to both topside Molokai and

Honolulu. Both locations are vital links to medical services, normal government services and

other shopping and entertainment activities.

Previously, FAA has awarded this EAS route to Pacific Wings since they said they would

provide EAS at no extra cost to the government. Their service was a disaster for Kalaupapa, and

basically was a ploy to gain access to the service that within short order raised prices by from

$30 to $503 dollars for a round trip to Honolulu. No one could afford to travel under that

tyranny and EAS service was severely degraded.

Makani Kai has provided EAS service to Kalaupapa with a subsidy, but they have maintained

and exceeded all their promises to provide affordable services and this has brought trip numbers

back to pre-Pacific Wings levels as the EAS is expected to provide.

Makani Kai has done everything they promised and done so very well for residents and visitors

to Kalaupapa.

----------
Please give your most serious consideration to their fme record operating under the EAS and

award the new contract to them for the foreseeable future. It is imperative for the health and

welfare of this community that you do so to provide long term security to this community for

access to and from Kalaupapa Settlement.

Sincerely,

Mark Miller

Adrriinistrator Kalaupapa Settlement

And attached 27 residents (Note - during furlough, NPS employees were not here to sign under

this letter)
Essential Air Service Letter of Support October 15, 2013

The following people live and work/volunteer in Kalaupapa Settlement and support the

continuation of Makani Kai as the Essential Air Service carrier for Kalaupapa:

-,/'-- -'-">-- -

,,'}}
#### Erik W. OLDENBURG, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-690.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Dec. 19, 1972.

Tobias Simon and Elizabeth J. du Fresne, Miami, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and William L. Rogers, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appel-lee.

Before PEARSON and HENDRY, JJ., and WARD, C. LAVON, Associate Judge.

PER CURIAM.

In light of the record in this cause, we find that there was sufficient evidence to support the trial judge’s finding that the appellant was guilty of a simple assault and battery within the purview of § 784.03, Fla.Stat., F.S.A., and that such a finding was proper under the charged crime as a lesser included offense thereof.

However, we are of the opinion that the trial judge erred in sentencing the appellant pursuant to § 801.091 and § 801.131, Fla. Stat., F.S.A., since the crime of simple assault and battery is punishable under the provisions of §§ 775.082, .083 of the Florida Statutes, F.S.A.

We, therefore, affirm that part of the judgment that found the appellant guilty of simple assault and battery, but reverse the sentence entered and remand with directions to re-sentence appellant in conformity with this opinion.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded with directions.
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 21

- 00007

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF R. N. F., A CHILD

On Appeal from the 148th District Court of Nueces County , Texas Trial Court Cause No. 08618E

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 cos ts are as sessed as appellant
filed an affidavit of inability to pay costs

. We further order this decision certified below for observance. Apri l 28, 2022
Table 10.  Percent Distribution by Type of Unit for the United States and 
                  for Inside and Outside MAs:  Fourth Quarter 2002 and 2001

(Percent distribution may not add to total, due to rounding)



                                                     Fourth quarter 2002
Type of housing unit
                                              United   Inside     Outside
                                              States     MAs        MAs

All housing units.........................       100        100        100

    Year-round vacant.....................       9.3        8.6       12.0
      For rent............................       2.9        3.1        2.5
      For sale only.......................       1.1        1.0        1.3
      Rented or sold, awaiting occupancy..       0.7        0.7        0.7
      Held off market.....................       4.6        3.9        7.5
        For occasional use................       1.6        1.3        3.1
        Temporarily occupied by persons
        with usual residence elsewhere....       0.8        0.8        0.8
        For other reasons.................       2.2        1.8        3.6

    Seasonal vacant.......................       2.8        1.5        7.8

    Occupied..............................      87.9       90.0       80.2



                                                     Fourth quarter 2001
Type of housing unit
                                              United   Inside     Outside
                                              States     MAs        MAs

All housing units.........................       100        100        100

    Year-round vacant.....................       8.9        8.1       12.0
      For rent............................       2.7        2.8        2.4
      For sale only.......................       1.1        1.1        1.3
      Rented or sold, awaiting occupancy..       0.6        0.6        0.6
      Held off market.....................       4.5        3.6        7.7
        For occasional use................       1.6        1.2        2.9
        Temporarily occupied by persons
        with usual residence elsewhere....       0.9        0.8        1.0
        For other reasons.................       2.1        1.6        3.8

    Seasonal vacant.......................       2.8        1.5        7.6

    Occupied..............................      88.3       90.4       80.4
Page 1 of 3

Disposition Comments

Docket No: FAA-2013-0400 These comments are in

Directorate ID: 2009-SW-48-AD response to an SNPRM

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

Next Step: FRAN SNPRM

 No Comments/Only Supportive Comments Received – If this box is checked, no signatures are 

required.

No Has the referenced service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? If yes, 

list latest revision and attach a copy. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously 

published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance.

Instructions: Summarize all comments by issue (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of 

each issue. All comments relating to the same issue should be discussed together. Do not list all of the issues 

from one commenter together. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and 

describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA-IR-M-8040.1C Chapter 9.

ISSUE 1: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD: 

If NO, we don’t agree because 

ISSUE 2: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD:
Page 2 of 3

If NO, we don’t agree because 

For additional issues, double-click here
Page 3 of 3

Signature Section

Signature indicates concurrence with this action.

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

ASE Printed Name: Date

Branch Manager Date
#### LITERARY INVESTMENT GUILD, LTD., Inc., a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. Eugene E. WILSON et al., Appellees.

No. 71-677.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

June 30, 1972.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1542 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1542

 To amend the National Labor Relations Act to permit employers to pay 
                    higher wages to their employees.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 24, 2013

  Mr. Rubio (for himself, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Coburn, Mr. Alexander, Mr. 
  Graham, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Moran, Mr. Cornyn, Mr. Risch, Mr. Flake, Mr. 
Thune, Mr. Johnson of Wisconsin, Mr. McConnell, Mr. Wicker, Mr. Scott, 
  Mr. Blunt, Mr. Isakson, Mr. Roberts, and Mr. Hatch) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                 Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the National Labor Relations Act to permit employers to pay 
                    higher wages to their employees.

    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 ``Rewarding Achievement and 
Incentivizing Successful Employees Act'' or the ``RAISE Act''.

SEC. 2. PAYMENT OF HIGHER WAGES.

    Section 9(a) of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 159(a)) 
is amended--
            (1) by inserting ``(1)'' after ``(a)''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following:
    ``(2) Notwithstanding a labor organization's exclusive 
representation of employees in a unit, or the terms and conditions of 
any collective bargaining contract or agreement then in effect, nothing 
in either--
            ``(A) section 8(a)(1) or 8(a)(5), or
            ``(B) a collective bargaining contract or agreement renewed 
        or entered into after the date of enactment of the RAISE Act,
shall prohibit an employer from paying an employee in the unit greater 
wages, pay, or other compensation for, or by reason of, his or her 
services as an employee of such employer, than provided for in such 
contract or agreement.''.
                                 <all>
```
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-90,206-01

EX PARTE DERRICK BERNARD GILDON, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 2016-11-7717-A IN THE 24TH DISTRICT COURT

FROM CALHOUN COUNTY

Per curiam.

O R D E R

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte

Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of aggravated assault

and sentenced to sixteen years’ imprisonment. The Thirteenth Court of Appeals affirmed his

conviction. Gildon v. State, No. 13-17-00692-CR (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi June 7, 2018) (not

designated for publication).

In three grounds, Applicant contends that trial counsel was ineffective. Applicant has alleged

facts that, if true, might entitle him to relief. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984); Ex parte

Patterson, 993 S.W.2d 114, 115 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). In these circumstances, additional facts
2

are needed. As we held in Ex parte Rodriguez, 334 S.W.2d 294, 294 (Tex. Crim. App. 1960), the

trial court is the appropriate forum for findings of fact. The trial court shall order trial counsel to

respond to Applicant’s grounds. The trial court may use any means set out in TEX. CODE CRIM.

PROC. art. 11.07, § 3(d).

Applicant appears to be represented by counsel. If he is not and the trial court elects to hold

a hearing, it shall determine whether Applicant is indigent. If Applicant is indigent and wishes to be

represented by counsel, the trial court shall appoint an attorney to represent him at the hearing. TEX.

CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 26.04. 

Afterreviewing counsel’s response, the trial court shall make findings of fact and conclusions

of law as to whether counsel’s conduct was deficient and Applicant was prejudiced. The trial court

shall also make any other findings of fact and conclusions of law that it deems relevant and

appropriate to the disposition of Applicant’s claims for habeas corpus relief.

This application will be held in abeyance until the trial court has resolved the fact issues. The

issues shall be resolved within 90 days of this order. A supplemental transcript containing all

affidavits and interrogatories or the transcription of the court reporter’s notes from any hearing or

deposition, along with the trial court’s supplemental findings of fact and conclusions of law, shall

be forwarded to this Court within 120 days of the date of this order. Any extensions of time must

be requested by the trial court and shall be obtained from this Court.

Filed: October 23, 2019

Do not publish
1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 42800

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

JAMES LEMAR PARTON,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2015 Unpublished Opinion No. 720

Filed: November 17, 2015

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the First Judicial District, State of Idaho, 

Bonner County. Hon. Barbara A. Buchanan, District Judge. 

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of twenty years, with a minimum 

term of confinement of ten years, for lewd conduct with a minor under sixteen, 

affirmed.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Elizabeth A. Allred, Deputy 

Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney 

General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before GUTIERREZ, Judge; GRATTON, Judge;

and HUSKEY, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM

James Lemar Parton was found guilty of lewd conduct with a minor child under sixteen, 

Idaho Code § 18-1508. The district court imposed a unified sentence of twenty years, with a 

minimum term of confinement of ten years. Parton appeals, contending that his sentence is 

excessive.

Sentencing is a matter for the trial court’s discretion. Both our standard of review and the 

factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the sentence are well established and 

need not be repeated here. See State v. Hernandez, 121 Idaho 114, 117-18, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014-
2

15 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Lopez, 106 Idaho 447, 449-51, 680 P.2d 869, 871-73 (Ct. App. 

1984); State v. Toohill, 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing 

the length of a sentence, we consider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. Oliver, 144 Idaho 

722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record 

in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.

Therefore, Parton’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                          55,183
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   44,094
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,570
<INVENTORY>                                     11,800
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               117,621
<PP&E>                                         420,831
<DEPRECIATION>                                 116,646
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 471,524
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          107,377
<BONDS>                                        230,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            65
<OTHER-SE>                                      97,985
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   471,524
<SALES>                                        119,676
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               143,483
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  113,913
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               6,218
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 24,115
<INCOME-TAX>                                       948
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             23,167
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    23,167
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.36
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.34


</TABLE>
#### SOUTHERN STATES LAND COMPANY, Inc., Appellant, v. Sumner KRAMER and Carole Kramer, his wife, and William R. Metz and Pearl Metz, his wife, Appellees.

No. 70-312.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Oct. 28, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                         217,383
<SECURITIES>                                 1,484,097
<RECEIVABLES>                                  785,155
<ALLOWANCES>                                    17,011
<INVENTORY>                                     59,423
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,702,653
<PP&E>                                      18,019,975
<DEPRECIATION>                                 388,317
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              26,802,628
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,162,146
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     3,309,528
<OTHER-SE>                                  20,429,412
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                26,802,628
<SALES>                                      2,280,317
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,280,317
<CGS>                                        1,108,675
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,428,003
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           (135,347)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,012,339)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,012,339)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,012,339)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.09)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.09)
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1

Certification of Periodic Financial Report

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, the undersigned, Charles E. Johnson, the chief executive officer of Proliance International, Inc. (the ‘‘issuer’’), does hereby certify that the report on Form 10-Q accompanying this certification (the ‘‘report’’) fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and that information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the issuer.

/s/ Charles E. Johnson                                Charles E. JohnsonPresident and Chief Executive Officer(chief executive officer)Proliance International, Inc.August 14, 2007

----
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-11314

Summary Calendar

JIMMY L. WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

STATE WIDE CLAIM SERVICE; FORT WORTH TRANSPORTATION 

AUTHORITY; MICHELLE DENISE PRICE: PHILLIP HERNANDEZ, Fort 

Worth Transportation Authority,

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:16-CV-734

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jimmy L. Williams, Texas prisoner # 01904141 appeals the dismissal of 

his civil negligence action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Williams

alleged that, prior to his incarceration, he suffered injuries while he was a 

passenger on a bus that was involved in a traffic accident.

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 31, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-11314 Document: 00514217610 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/31/2017
No. 16-11314

2

The burden is on Williams to show federal jurisdiction. See Stafford v. 

Mobil Oil Corp., 945 F.2d 803, 804 (5th Cir. 1991). He alleges diversity 

jurisdiction, but there is no diversity between Williams and any of the 

defendants, because all of the parties are citizens of Texas. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1332; Owen Equip. and Erect. Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 373 (1978) (noting 

that § 1332 requires complete diversity of citizenship). Neither Williams nor 

the record shows any other basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction.

Accordingly the appeal is DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS. 5TH CIR.

R. 42.2. Williams’s motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED. 

 Case: 16-11314 Document: 00514217610 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/31/2017