alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

KELLY ANN CHAKOV MCDOUGALL, an individual and as trustee; JULIANA GARCIA, an individual; SECOND
AMENDMENT FOUNDATION;

CALIFORNIA GUN RIGHTS
FOUNDATION; FIREARMS POLICY
COALITION, INC.,

Plaintiffs

- Appellants,

v.

COUNTY OF VENTURA; BILL AYU B;
WILLIAM T. FOLEY; ROBERT LEVIN;

VENTURA COUNTY PUBLIC HEALTH
CARE AGENCY,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 20

- 56220

D.C. No.

2:20

- cv

- 02927

- CBM

- AS Central District of California, Los Angeles

ORDER

Before: MURGUIA, Chief Judge, and KLEINFELD, McKEOWN, CALLAHAN, NGUYEN, HURWITZ, FRIEDLAND, R. NELSON, MILLER, SANCHEZ and H. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

The district court’s judgment is vacated, and this case is remanded to the

district court for further pr oceedings consistent with the United States Supreme

Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen , 597 U.S. ____

(2022).

The parties shall bear their own attorney’s fees, costs, and expenses. This 

# FILED

JUN 29 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2

order constitutes the mandate of this court.

VACATED AND REMANDED.
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2028 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on Thymol. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 29, 2009 

Mr. MENENDEZ introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on Thymol. 

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

3 SECTION 1. THYMOL. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.01.43 of the Har5 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

6 Thymol) is amended by striking the date in the effective 

7 period column and inserting ‘‘12/31/2011’’. 

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

9 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

10 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

11 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
#### In the Matter of James A. Chaffin, Petitioner, v Edward V. Regan, as New York State Comptroller, et al., Respondents.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondent Comptroller which denied petitioner’s application for ordinary disability retirement benefits.

The record shows two different medical opinions as to whether petitioner was permanently incapacitated from performing his duties as a truck driver. It is well settled that the evaluation of conflicting medical evidence by respondent *1081Comptroller must be accepted *(Matter of Curley v Regan,*102 AD2d 939) and he may accord more weight to the testimony of one physician than that of another *(Matter of McGrath v Regan,*109 AD2d 1007). Therefore, since the testimony of the physician for respondent State Employees’ Retirement System supports the Comptroller’s determination denying petitioner’s application for ordinary disability retirement benefits, it is supported by substantial evidence and must be upheld *(see, supra).*Petitioner’s remaining contentions have been reviewed and found to be lacking in merit.

Determination confirmed, and petition dismissed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Casey, Weiss, Yesawich, Jr., and Harvey, JJ., concur.
Docket Number: FAA-2011-0998

 Contacts. With whom outside the FAA has this proposal been discussed? 

Organization Person Contacted Date Response 

National Business Aircraft Association Eli Cotti 3/10/11

Regional Airline Association Dave Lotterer

Connie

Arnold

3/10/11

Aircraft Owners & Pilots Association Robert Hackman 3/10/11

ATA Joe White 3/10/11
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

John Barfield and Tana Barfield, Wife, 

Individually, and John Barfield and Tana 

Barfield as Next Friends of C. B. and K. 

B., Minor Children,

 

 Appellants,

v.

SandRidge Energy, Inc. and Jose Pepe 

Saenz,

 Appellees.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-17-00059-CV

Appeal from the

109th District Court

of Andrews County, Texas 

(TC# 19145)

O R D E R

On April 7, 2017 this Court issued an order for mediation referral. The order required the 

parties to make any objection to referral within ten days of the order. On April 17, 2017 

Appellees timely filed an objection. The Court finds Appellees’ objection persuasive.

Therefore, the Court ORDERS this appeal to continue, the appellate timetable suspension 

is lifted and the Record shall now be filed in this Court on or before May 17, 2017.

 IT IS SO ORDERED this 17th day of April, 2017.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez and Palafox, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1868 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1868

      To renew the temporary suspension of duty on hydroxylamine.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 26, 2009

   Mr. Casey introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
      To renew the temporary suspension of duty on hydroxylamine.

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

SECTION 1. HYDROXYLAMINE.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.01.03 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to hydroxylamine) is amended by 
striking the date in the effective period column and inserting ``12/31/
2011''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN RE:

ORDER AMENDING RULES

1910.4, 1910.16, 1910.16-4, 

1910.17, 1920.1, 1920.13, 1920.15, 

1920.31, 1920.51, 1920.52, 

1920.54, 1920.56, AND 1920.74 

OF THE PENNSYLVANIA RULES 

OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

NO. 683

CIVIL PROCEDURAL RULES 

DOCKET 

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 30th day of July, 2018, upon the recommendation of the 

Domestic Relations Procedural Rules Committee; the proposal having been published 

for public comment in the Pennsylvania Bulletin, 47 Pa.B. 2540 (May 6, 2017):

It is Ordered pursuant to Article V, Section 10 of the Constitution of Pennsylvania 

that Rules 1910.4, 1910.16, 1910.16-4, 1910.17, 1920.1, 1920.13, 1920.15, 1920.31, 

1920.51, 1920.52, 1920.54, 1920.56, and 1920.74 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil 

Procedure are amended in the attached form.

This Order shall be processed in accordance with Pa.R.J.A. No. 103(b), and shall 

be effective on January 1, 2019.

Additions to the rule are shown in bold and are underlined.

Deletions from the rule are shown in bold and brackets.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Melvin Pellot, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Lowe III, J.), rendered February 7, 1990, convicting defendant of robbery in the first and second degrees and sentencing him to concurrent terms of imprisonment of from *4*to 12 and 3 to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court’s supplemental instructions, charging the jury that the mental culpability test applies to each degree of each crime charged, and to the elements of each individual crime, satisfactorily conveyed to the jury the appropriate standard to be applied pursuant to Penal Law § 20.15.

The Trial Court committed no abuse of discretion in denying, without a hearing, defendant’s post-verdict motion, pursuant to CPL 330.30 (3), based upon newly discovered evidence. The evidence relied upon was co-defendant Rivera’s proposed testimony, disclosed to the parties for the first time during jury deliberations, to the effect that Rivera had stolen complainant’s property while defendant remained in the vehicle, unaware of what was going on. Defendant could have, but failed, to present this version of the facts to the jury. As such, defendant did not fulfill the requirements set forth in *People v Salemi*(309 NY 208, *cert denied*350 US 950).

We conclude defendant has failed to demonstrate that the sentencing court abused its discretion. We have considered the remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Wallach, Ross and Kassal, JJ.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

LAMM TOWNHOUSES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. F/K/A 

LAMM TOWNHOUSE HOMEOWNERS ASSOC. CORP., 

Appellant, 

v.

Case No. 5D22-386

LT Case No. 2018-CA-034225

CARL T. HILL, VICKI L. HILL, HELMUT LAMM, JULIE C. LAMM,

INDIVIDUALLY AND AS TRUSTEE OF THE JULIE C. LAMM TRUST U/A

DATED MAY 7, 2010, MARK SAFFER, TERESITA ABORLLEILE,

INDIVIDUALLY AND, 

Appellees. 

________________________________/ 

Decision filed August 1, 2023

Appeal from the Circuit Court

for Brevard County, 

David Dugan, Judge.

Robyn Marie Severs, of Becker,

Orlando, for Appellant.

Beverly A. Pohl, of Nelson Mullins, 

Boca Raton, and Jeremy Springhart, of 

Nelson Mullins, Orlando, for Appellees, Carl 

T. Hill and Vicki L. Hill.

No Appearance for Other Appellees.

PER CURIAM. 

AFFIRMED. 

EDWARDS, C.J., WALLIS and MACIVER, JJ., concur.
### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-11-00501- CR

Gar y Allen Dunn , Appellan t

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F B ELL COUNTY , 264 TH JUDICI AL DISTRICT NO. 647 50- A, H ONO RAB LE JO E CARROLL, JUDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Gar y Allen Dunn pled g uilty

to the felony

offe nse of driving while intox icated a s a
repe at offe nder and was sentenc ed to nineteen y ear s’ imprisonment. This Court dismiss ed Dunn’s orig inal appea l for lack of jurisdiction beca use t he trial court certified that this was a plea barg ain

case and Dunn had no rig ht of appea l. See Dunn v. State , No. 03-10-00336- CR, 2010 Tex. App.
L EXI S 6361 (Tex. App.—Austin Aug. 3, 2010, no pe t.).

Subsequently , Dunn filed a post-conviction appl ic a ti o n f o r w r it o f habea s corpus. See
Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 11.07 (West Supp. 2 0 1 0 ). The district court enter ed an order

rec ommending denial of the application an d forwa rded a copy of its order to the Texas Court of Criminal Appea ls. Dunn filed a pro se notice of appea l in this Court challeng ing the district court’s order and then f

iled a motion to withdraw his appea l.This court has no jurisdiction over post-conviction writs of habea s corpus in felony

case s. See Ex parte Alexa n d er , 6 8 5 S

. W .2d 57, 60 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985); Ex parte Martinez , 175 S.W .3d 510, 512-13 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2005, orig

. proce eding ); see also Tex. Code Crim.
Proc. Ann. art. 11.07, § 3 (re quiring pos t -c o n v i ction applications for writs of habea s corpus in felony case s in which death penalty was not assessed to be filed in court of orig inal co n v i ction and made returna

ble to court of criminal appea ls). The court o f cr i m i n al appea ls has exclusive jurisdiction to revie w the me rits of a post-conviction application for habea s relief under article 11.07.
See Tex. Code Crim. P roc. A nn. art. 11.07, § 5.

Acc ording ly , we dismiss the appea l for want of jurisdicti o n . Dunn’s motion to withdraw his appe al is dismis sed as moot.

J eff Rose, J ustice
Be fore J ustices Pury ear , Rose and Goodwin Dismissed for Want of J urisdiction Filed: Nove mber 9, 2011 Do Not Publish

2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 7
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                           185,241
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                                0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                                  0
<EQUITIES>                                      16,569
<MORTGAGE>                                           0
<REAL-ESTATE>                                        0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                                 201,810
<CASH>                                          23,713
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                             115,795
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                          10,030
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 551,977
<POLICY-LOSSES>                                229,244
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                             90,095
<POLICY-OTHER>                                       0
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                                0
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                 58,463
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            85
<OTHER-SE>                                     100,323
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   551,977
<PREMIUMS>                                     124,906
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                             11,608
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                               (227)
<OTHER-INCOME>                                  38,707
<BENEFITS>                                      95,358
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                     12,540
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                            81,152
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (14,056)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (6,209)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (7,847)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                      (1,706)
<NET-INCOME>                                   (9,553)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (1.11)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.11)
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                  84,254
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                             80,296
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                               15,062
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                              12,578
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                39,534
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                127,500
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                         15,062


</TABLE>
exv10w3



 






	 	 	 	 	 



Exhibit
10.3




AMENDMENT TO

WINDSTREAM MANAGEMENT DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN





     The Windstream Management Deferred Compensation Plan (the “Plan”) is amended, effective as of
December 29, 2006, as follows:




“Each Participant’s Deferred Compensation Account balance under the Plan (as adjusted for
earnings through December 31, 2006) will be transferred and credited to the Participant’s
“Prior Plan Account” under the Windstream 2007 Deferred Compensation Plan (the “2007 Plan”)
as of January 1, 2007. As a result of such transfer and crediting, all of the Company’s
obligations and Participant’s rights under the Plan shall automatically be extinguished and
become obligations and rights under the 2007 Plan without further action and the Plan shall
automatically be terminated, in each case effective as of January 1, 2007.”



     This amendment has been approved and signed by an authorized officer of Windstream Corporation
as of the date specified above.



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	WINDSTREAM CORPORATION

 	 
	 	By:  	/s/
John P. Fletcher 	 
	 	 	Name:  	John P. Fletcher 	 
	 	 	Title:  	Executive Vice President and General Counsel
® SEIL TRAVEL AMERICA, INC. 

145 W. 45th Street, Suite 401, New York, NY 10036 

Tel 212-889-1141 800-262-7345 Fax 212-889-7965 

February 24, 2010 

The Honorable Ray LaHood 

Secretary 

United States Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, D.C. 

20590 

ACTIO N 

SI 0-)-/0"t 4 00318-00 ) 5 

CONTROL riO 

Subject: Haneda Combination Services Allocation Proceeding DOT-OST-2010-0018 

Dear Secretary LaHood: 

As a dedicated travel partner of American Airlines, I am writing in support of American's 

application to provide new service from New York's John F. Kennedy international 

Airport and Los Angeles International Airport to Tokyo International Airport at Haneda. 

I recognize and applaud you and the Obama administration for your success last 

December in reaching a landmark Open Skies agreement with Japan, which opens up 

Haneda to service by U.S. airlines. 

I encourage your selection of American Airlines to provide nonstop service from New 

York and Los Angeles to Haneda in order to provide an essential connection between 

three of the world's financial and commerce centers. 

Recent events, including the successful preservation of Japan Airlines' oneworld Alliance 

membership, have underscored American's strong commitment to the trans-Pacific 

market. American is likewise committed to New York and Los Angles - both vital focal 

points of business, trade, entertainment, technology and education - providing 

unsurpassed air service since the mid-1900s 

Both the New York and Los Angeles metro areas will gain significant economic benefits 

from these proposed new flights, as will American's customers and employees. 

However, we need your help to make the JFK/Haneda connection a reality. 

Therefore, I strongly urge you to say yes to American Airlines and its request for slots to 

fly from Kennedy to Haneda) 

Sincerely, 

c::i 

Hiroshi Tobe, President
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 44 (Tuesday, March 6, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 13347]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-5425]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering; 
Notice of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following 
meetings.
    The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and 
Bioengineering Special Emphasis Panel; Career Awards (2012/05).
    Date: March 26, 2012.
    Time: 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Hyatt Regency Bethesda, One Bethesda Metro Center, 7400 
Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814.
    Contact Person: Ruixia Zhou, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, 
6707 Democracy Boulevard, Democracy Two Building, Suite 957, 
Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-496-4773, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#52283a3d2720123f333b3e7c3c3b3a7c353d24"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="5c263433292e1c313d353072323534723b332a">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and 
Bioengineering Special Emphasis Panel; Point-of-Care Technologies 
Research Network (U54).
    Date: March 28-29, 2012.
    Time: 6 p.m. to 5 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Hyatt Regency Bethesda, One Bethesda Metro Center, 7400 
Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814.
    Contact Person: John K. Hayes, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, 
6707 Democracy Boulevard, Room 959, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-451-
3398, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#234b425a465049634e424a4f0d4d4a4b0d444c55"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="8ce4edf5e9ffe6cce1ede5e0a2e2e5e4a2ebe3fa">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: February 29, 2012.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2012-5425 Filed 3-5-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v. IVAN MARTINEZ

- RAMIREZ,

Defendant

- Appellant. No. 16

- 50268 D.C. No. 3:10

- cr - 00315

- BEN

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Roger T. Benitez, District Judge, Presiding Submitted January 18, 2017 ** Before: TROTT, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Ivan Martinez

- Ramirez appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 12

- month sentence imposed upon his revocation of supervised
release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Martinez

- Ramirez contends that the district court procedurally erred and

* 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

JAN 24 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 16

- 50268

violated his due process rights by failing to notify him at sentencing for the underlying offense that he could receive an above

- Guidelines sentence for violating the terms of his supervised release. The record does not support this
contention. At his sentencing on his underlying offense, M artinez

- Ramirez
received notice of all of the condi tions of his supervised release and the district court informed him of the possible penalties for violating those conditions

. Martinez

- Ramirez next argues that the district court did not explain the upward variance adequately. This argument is also belied by the record, which
reflects that the court sufficiently explained its reasons for the sentence by reference to appropriate considerations

. See United States v. Carty , 520 F.3d 98 4 , 992 (9th Cir. 2008 ) (en banc)

. Martinez

- Ramirez finally claims that his sentence i s substantively
unreasonable becau se the one - third upward variance from the Guidelines range
was not warranted

. The district cour t did not abuse its discretion

. See Gall v. United States , 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007)

. The above

- Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) sentencing factors and3 16

- 50268

the totality of the circumstances , including Marti nez - Ramirez’s lengthy period of noncomplia nce. See Gall , 552 U.S. at 51.
AFFIRMED.