alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Jamarr Rashaun Johnson, 

Plaintiff, 

V. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

Civil Action No. 

Federal Bureau of Prisons et al., 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Defendants. ) 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

FILED 

JUN 2 1 2012 

Clerk, U.S. District & Bankruptcy 

Courts for the District of Columbia 

12 1016 

This matter is before the Court on its initial review of plaintiffs pro se complaint and 

application to proceed in forma pauperis. The application will be granted and the complaint will 

be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A (requiring dismissal of a prisoner's complaint upon 

a determination that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted). 

Plaintiff is a prisoner at the Federal Correctional Center in Coleman, Florida, suing under 

the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a. Plaintiff alleges that his inmate central file contains inaccurate 

information that has adversely affected his custody. He seeks $20,000 in damages, "amendment 

of his records in [his] inmate central file," and his "Return back to general population." Com pl. 

at 6. 

In addition to the Bureau of Prisons ("BOP"), plaintiffhas named his warden and three 

other employe~s at his facility as defendants. Because only federal agencies are subject to suit 

under the Privacy Act, "no cause of action exists that would entitle [plaintiff] to relief from [the 

named individual defendants] under the Privacy Act .... " Martinez v. Bureau of Prisons, 444 

F.3d 620, 624 (D.C. Cir. 2006). 
Plaintiffs claim against BOP fails because BOP has exempted its Inmate Central Record 

System from the Privacy Act's accuracy and amendment requirements (subsections (d) and 

(e)(5)). 28 C.F.R. § 16.97(a)(4); White v. United States Probation Office, 148 F.3d 1124, 1125 

(D.C. Cir. 1998) (per curiam) ("Under regulations ... presentence reports and BOP inmate 

records systems are exempt from the amendment provisions of the Act"); see Martinez, 444 F.3d 

at 624 ("The BOP has exempted its Inmate Central Record System from the accuracy provisions 

ofthe Privacy Act[.]") (citations omitted). And "[h]aving exempted its records from the 

substantive provision regarding the agency's record keeping obligations, BOP effectively 

deprives litigants of a remedy for any harm caused by the agency's substandard recordkeeping." 

Ramirez v. Dep 't of Justice, 594 F. Supp. 2d 58, 65 (D.D.C. 2009), aff'd, No. 10-5016, 2010 WL 

4340408 (D.C. Cir. Oct. 19, 201 0) (per curiam); see Lopez v. Huff, 508 F. Supp. 2d 71, 77 

(D.D.C. 2007) ("To the extent that plaintiff is seeking to have his [presentence investigation 

report] amended, such relief is not available because the BOP has properly exempted its inmate 

central files, where such documents are kept, from the [Privacy Act's] amendment 

requirements.") (citations omitted). A separate Order of dismissal accompanies this 

Memorandum Opinion. 

l/L__ S J)vJL 

United States District Judge 

DATE: June~, 2012 

2
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2255 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2255

      To extend the temporary suspension of duty on Pyriproxyfen.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 29, 2009

Mrs. Feinstein 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 Pyriproxyfen.

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

SECTION 1. PYRIPROXYFEN.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.05.23 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to Pyriproxyfen) is amended by 
striking ``12/31/2009'' and inserting ``12/31/2011''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
with respect 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>
```
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Defense

###### Department of the Army

# AGENCY:

Department of the Army, DOD.

# ACTION:

Notice; correction.

# SUMMARY:

                        The notice published in the                         **Federal Register**                         on January 6, 2012 (77 FR 783) contained an incorrect U.S. Provisional Patent Application Serial No. The correct number is 61/105,604.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

For patent issues, Ms. Elizabeth Arwine, Patent Attorney, (301) 619-7808. For licensing issues, Dr. Paul Mele, Office of Research and Technology Applications (ORTA), (301) 619-6664, both at telefax (301) 619-5034.

Brenda S. Bowen,

Army Federal Register Liaison Officer.

[FR Doc. 2012-649 Filed 1-13-12; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3710-08-P
#### FREDERICK CURRIER *v.*PATRICK CURRIER

*Ian A. Cole,*in support of the petition.

*Jeffrey D. Ginzberg,*in opposition.

Decided April 8, 1998

The plaintiffs petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 47 Conn. App. 940 (AC 17148), is denied.
#### Ollie WARD v. James W. CARTER and Cattie B. Carter.

No. 57705.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

April 20, 1988.

Mitchell M. Lundy, Sr., Lundy & Lundy, Grenada, for appellant.

Thomas Morris, Morris & Turnage, Levi Boone, III, Cleveland, for appellee.

Appeal from Chancery Court, Grenada County; Dennis M. Baker, Chancellor.

Before DAN M. LEE, P.J., and ROBERTSON and ZUCCARO, JJ.

AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 35.4

SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT

American Express Bank, FSB

American Express Credit Account Master Trust

Reporting Period January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2014

The undersigned, a duly authorized officer of American Express Bank, FSB (AEFSB), a wholly-owned subsidiary of American Express Travel Related
Services Company, Inc. (TRS), pursuant to the Amended and Restated Supplemental Servicing Agreement, dated as of March 30, 2010, among TRS, AEFSB, American Express Centurion Bank, American Express Receivables Financing Corporation
III LLC, American Express Receivables Financing Corporation IV LLC, and American Express Receivables Financing Corporation II (as amended from time to time, the Agreement), does hereby certify that:



|1. | AEFSB performs certain servicing procedures on behalf of TRS under the Agreement.
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | The undersigned is duly authorized to execute and deliver this Certificate.
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------



|3. | A review of AEFSBs activities during the reporting period and of its performance under the Agreement has been made under my supervision.
|-- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|4. | To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, AEFSB has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the reporting period.
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Certificate this 27th day of March, 2015.



|                           |  |                                        
|-------------------------- |  | ---------------------------------------
|AMERICAN EXPRESS BANK, FSB
|                           | 
|By:                        |  | /s/ Denise D. Roberts                  
|Name:                      |  | Denise D. Roberts                      
|Title:                     |  | Chief Financial Officer                
|                           | 
|By:                        |  | /s/ Brady P. Bagley                    
|Name:                      |  | Brady P. Bagley                        
|Title:                     |  | Vice President  Controller, US Banking
Assembly comparison of a 6 speed vs 8 speed automatic transmissions

6 Speed 8 Speed

Clutch packs 5 5

Roller Thurst Bearings 10 10

Select fit shims 1 1

Gear sets 3 4

Snap ring asembly 5 5

Oil pump chain drive 0 1

Input shaft 1 1

Intermediate shaft 1 0

Output shaft 1 1

Main control 3 piece 3 piece

Valves / components 20 21

Fasteners 33 38

TCU 1 1

Summary

The 8 speed clutch and gear sets will be progressively built off line and then dropped into the case

The 8 speed will require more off line sub-assembly systems / people

The 8 speed main control assembly process / equipment will be same as 6 speed

The 8 speed TCU assembly process / equipment will be same as 6 speed

The 8 speed final assembly will be shorter than 6 speed

The 8 speed assembly cost will be comparable to the 6 speed cost

The trade off will be in sub-assembly and final assembly equipment type and quantity
d automatic transmissions

off line and then dropped into the case

ll be same as 6 speed

uipment type and quantity
#### Ronald C. DUDAN, M.D., Appellant, v. Maritza GAIQUI, as mother and natural guardian of Natasha Gaiqui, a minor, and Maritza Gaiqui, individually, Appellee.

No. 85-2850.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Dec. 23, 1986.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 3, 1987.

Thornton, Herndon & Mastrucci and John Edward Herndon, Jr., Miami, for appellant.

Daniels & Hicks and Patrice A. Talisman, Robert J. Dickman, Coral Gables, for appel-lee.

Before HUBBART, BASKIN and FERGUSON, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. *See Marks v. Mandel,*477 So.2d 1036 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); *Anderson v. State,*463 So.2d 276 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984), *review denied,*475 So.2d 693 (Fla.1985); *Wright v. Schulte,*441 So.2d 660 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983), *review denied,*450 So.2d 488 (Fla.1984); *Sharp v. Lewis,*367 So.2d 714 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); *Walker v. City of Miami,*337 So.2d 1002 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976).
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2176 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2176

  To extend the temporary suspension of duty on certain plasticizers.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 29, 2009

Mr. Specter (for himself and Mr. Casey) 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 certain plasticizers.

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

SECTION 1. CERTAIN PLASTICIZERS.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.24.61 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to certain plasticizers) is 
amended by striking ``12/31/2009'' 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

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

DANIEL RILEY,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 502 EAL 2021

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Unpublished 

Memorandum and Order of the 

Superior Court at No. 1818 EDA 

2020 entered on October 20, 2021, 

affirming the PCRA Order of the 

Philadelphia County Court of 

Common Pleas at No. CP-51-CR0006088-2012 entered on August 

28, 2020

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 19th day of April, 2022, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

GRANTED. The judgment of the Superior Court is VACATED, and the matter is 

REMANDED for reconsideration in light of Commonwealth v. Bradley, 261 A.3d 381 (Pa. 

2021).
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration

# AGENCY:

Employment and Training Administration, Labor.

# ACTION:

Notice of Solicitation for Grant Applications (SGA).

*Funding Opportunity Number:*                     SGA/DFA PY 11-09.                

# SUMMARY:

The U.S. Department of Labor (Department or DOL), Employment and Training Administration (ETA), announces the availability of approximately $20 million in grant funds authorized by the Workforce Investment Act to serve juvenile offenders, ages 14 and above, in high-poverty, high-crime communities. The purpose of these grants is to improve the long-term labor market prospects of these youth. These grants will be awarded through a competitive process open to organizations with the capacity to implement multi-site, multi-state projects. The Department expects to award four grants of $5 million each to cover a 32-month period of performance that includes up to 6 months of planning and a minimum of 26 months of operation. DOL will require grantees to competitively select local sub-grantees to operate the program in a minimum of three high-poverty, high-crime communities in at least two states.

                        The complete SGA and any subsequent SGA amendments in connection with this solicitation are described in further detail on ETA's Web site at                         *http://www.doleta.gov/​grants/​*                         or on                         *http://www.grants.gov.*                         The Web sites provide application information, eligibility requirements, review and selection procedures, and other program requirements governing this solicitation.                    

# DATES:

The closing date for receipt of applications is May 1, 2012.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Melissa Abdullah, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Room N-4716, Washington, DC 20210; Telephone: 202-693-3346.

Signed March 9, 2012 in Washington, DC

Donna Kelly,

Grant Officer, Employment and Training Administration.

[FR Doc. 2012-6283 Filed 3-15-12; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-FT-P
EX-10.17 3 rcat1102forms1a1exh10_17.htm LEASE DATED JANUARY 15,
2019 BY AND BETWEEN GAMH PROPERTIES, INC. AND ROTOR RIOT LLC


Exhibit 10.17
#### Lena Mae Ezell HANO, Harold Ray Hano, Sharon Ann Hano Sullivan, Kenneth James Hano, Phillip Wayne Hano, and Nancy Marie Hano v. LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND DEVELOPMENT.

No. 88-C-0669.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 22, 1988.

In re: Hano, Lena Mae Ezell; Hano, Harold Ray; Sullivan, Sharon Ann Hano; Hano, Kenneth James; Hano, Phillip Wayne; Hano, Nancy Marie; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Number CA86 1435; Parish of Livingston 21st Judicial District Court Div. “E” Number 33206

Prior report: La.App., 519 So.2d 796.

Denied. The result is correct.

LEMMON, J.,

concurs, disagreeing with the reasoning of the court of appeal, but finds no basis to hold defendant at fault.

CALOGERO and COLE, JJ.,

would grant the writ. There is no presumption of Hano’s negligence in this case. The Court of Appeal erred in extending the presumption of negligence enunciated in *Simon v. Ford Motor Company,*282 So.2d 126 (La. 1973), to these facts. The mere presence of Hano’s car on the opposite shoulder does not imply negligence on his part since this does not exclude other reasonable hypotheses consistent with proper driving.

*862
      *See Larkin v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.,*233 La. 544, 554-55, 97 So.2d 389, 392-93 (1957). Since the trial court found there was no evidence of Hano’s negligence, the State has failed to establish the defense of contributory negligence. *Esco v. Smith,*468 So.2d 1169 (La.1985).
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

S.J.P.,

Petitioner

v.

L.L.P.,

Respondent :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 516 WAL 2016

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 25th day of May, 2017

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
#### Herman WELLS v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY and Joseph Puma. Herman WELLS v. CAP-CON INTERNATIONAL, INC., and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company. Herman WELLS v. CAP-CON INTERNATIONAL, INC., and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company.

No. 87-C-2160.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 13, 1987.

In re Wells, Herman; applying for writ of certiorari and/or review, and/or supervisory writs; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Nos. CA85 1309, CA86 0092 and CA86 0650; Parish of Tangipahoa, 21st Judicial District Court, Div. “F”, Nos. 67263, 72860.

Prior report: La.App., 503 So.2d 1199.

Denied.
S. 1929 

One Hundred Eleventh Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE FIRST SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday, 

the sixth day of January, two thousand and nine 

An Act 

To provide for an additional temporary extension of programs under the Small 

Business Act and the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, and for other purposes. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. ADDITIONAL TEMPORARY EXTENSION OF AUTHORIZATION 

OF PROGRAMS UNDER THE SMALL BUSINESS ACT AND 

THE SMALL BUSINESS INVESTMENT ACT OF 1958. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1 of the Act entitled ‘‘An Act to 

extend temporarily certain authorities of the Small Business 

Administration’’, approved October 10, 2006 (Public Law 109–316; 

120 Stat. 1742), as most recently amended by section 1 of Public 

Law 111–66, is amended by striking ‘‘October 31, 2009’’ each place 

it appears and inserting ‘‘January 31, 2010’’. 

(b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by subsection 

(a) shall take effect on October 30, 2009. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
#### CITY OF BATON ROUGE v. Johnnie A. JONES, Jr.

No. 87-KK-2161.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 13, 1987.

In re Jones, Johnnie A. Jr.; applying for supervisory writ, prohibition, mandamus and remedial writ; Parish of East Baton Rouge, City of Baton Rouge, Div. “D”, No. F-78881; 19th Judicial District Court, Div. *464“H”, No. 1-86-598; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. KW87 1221.

Denied.
EXHIBIT
32.2




CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Chisen Electric Corporation (the “Company”) on Form
10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2009 as filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the
undersigned hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his
knowledge:




1. The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and




2. The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.


Date:
      June 30, 2009
                  By:
                  /s/He ZhiweiName: He
      ZhiweiTitle: Chief
      Financial Officer,
                          Principal
      Financial andAccounting
      Officer
  A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
authentications, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
by Section 906, has been provided to Chisen Electric Corporation will be
retained by Chisen Electric Corporation and furnished to the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.