alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
June 11,2012

The Honorable Ray 

### L. LaHood Secretary U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 NewJersey Avenue, SE Washington, D.C. 20590
Dear Secretary LaHood: '

.. )

-.-··

We are very pleased to write in support ofthe application submitted by the Burlington International Airport for funding through the Department ofTransportation's Small Community Air Service Development Grant program (CFDANumber 20.930).
As Vermont's primary commercial airport, Burlington Intemational plays a vital role in supporting Vermont's economy. Not only does it provide critical passenger and freight services for Vermont businesses, but 

### it is also often one ofthe first places visited when tourists arrive in Vermont. However, like many small airports, Burlington Intemational experienced a significant decline in passengerenplanements overthe past few years. One ofthe primaryreasons behind this trend is because the number ofseats offered by airlines has decreased as a direct result of airline mergers. The goal ofBurlington Intemational Airport's Small CommunityAir Service Development Grant application is to open one or more newroutes onincumberit carriers, to provide additional seats for the anticipated increase in demand as theeconomy continues to improve, and to give passengers additional connection options outside ofthenation's congested Northeast con·idor. Specifically, the funds would be used to assist with a comprehensive marketing plan and a limited-time revenue guaranteeprogram to promote and support enhanced air service. This application represents a strongpartnership between the City ofBurlington, the local and regional business community, and the State ofVermont.
We appreciate you giving this request the serious consideration it deserves. Ifwe may be ofany assistanceor answer any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Sincerely,

# ~~ PATRICK LEAHY United States Senator 

### 510-120618-015 BERNARD SANDERS United States Senator PETER WELCH Member ofCongress
III

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. RES. 232

Making changes to Senate committees for the 106th Congress.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

NOVEMBER 10, 1999

Mr. LOTT (for himself and Mr. DASCHLE) submitted the following resolution;

which was considered and agreed to

RESOLUTION

Making changes to Senate committees for the 106th

Congress.

1 Resolved, That notwithstanding the provisions of S.

2 Res. 400 of the 95th Congress, or the provisions of rule

3 XXV, the following changes shall be effective on those

4 Senate committees listed below for the 106th Congress,

5 or until their successors are appointed:

6 COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE: Effective the 2nd

7 session of the 106th Congress, remove Mr. DeWine and

8 Mr. Kerrey.

Æ
A01A1190.

#### JACKSON v. THE STATE.

(555 SE2d 240)

Blackburn, Chief Judge.

Following a jury trial, Martino Jamar Jackson appeals his convictions for child molestation, aggravated child molestation, and sodomy, contending that: (1) the trial court erred by failing to merge the convictions for aggravated child molestation and sodomy and (2) there was a fatal variance between the indictment for aggravated child molestation and sodomy and the evidence presented on those charges. Because Jackson waived these arguments for purposes of appeal, we affirm.

1. Jackson first contends that the trial court should have merged his convictions for aggravated child molestation and sodomy as a matter of fact. Jackson further contends that, because of this error, he was improperly sentenced. Jackson, however, “did not object in the trial court to the sentences imposed nor contend that the offenses merged. Thus, the matter was not preserved for appellate review.” (Punctuation omitted.) *Wright v. State.*
      *1*
      **See also *Heard v. State.*
      *2*

2. Jackson contends that the indictment regarding the counts of aggravated child molestation and sodomy brought against him contained a fatal variance. Once again, however, Jackson has waived this error.

> Because the record fails to demonstrate that [Jackson] raised the fatal variance issue on his [aggravated child molestation and sodomy] conviction[s] in the trial court, we may not address it here. Issues presented for the first time *17on appeal furnish nothing for us to review, for this is a court for correction of errors of law committed by the trial court where proper exception is taken, because one may not abandon an issue in the trial court and on appeal raise questions or issues neither raised nor ruled on by the trial court.

Decided October 12, 2001.

*Glaze, Glaze, Harris & Arnold, Emmett J. Arnold,*for appellant.

*Robert E. Keller, District Attorney, Erman J. Tanjuatco, Assistant District Attorney,*for appellee.

(Punctuation omitted.) *Freeland v. State.*
      *3*

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Pope, P. J., and Mikell, J., concur.*

*Wright v. State,*233 Ga. App. 358, 362 (4) (504 SE2d 261) (1998).

*Heard v. State,*232 Ga. App. 405, 406 (2) (501 SE2d 884) (1998).

*Freeland v. State,*223 Ga. App. 326, 327 (2) (477 SE2d 633) (1996).
(i)
    
    the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2008 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
 (ii)
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 Dated: July 31, 2008
    
    /s/ ALAN D. GOLDAlan D. GoldChief Executive Officer
    (i)
    
    the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2008 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
 (ii)
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 Dated: July 31, 2008
    
    /s/ KENT GRIFFINKent GriffinChief Financial Officer
#### Gustave B. Garfield, Plaintiff, *v.*The Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States et al., Defendants.

Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County,

June 5, 1958.

*Leo D. Fitsgerold*for The Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States, defendant.

*Gustave B.*Garfield, in person, and *Charles Trynin*for Gustave B. Garfield, plaintiff.

*Da/vis Polk Wardwell Sunderland, & Kiendl*for Raymond N. Ball and others, defendants.

Thomas A. Aurelio, J.

The motion of the defendant The Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States for dismissal of the complaint as to it pursuant to subdivision 4 of rule 106 and pursuant to subdivision 2 of rule 107 of the Rules of Civil Practice is granted. The amended complaint was served by direction for the purpose of eliminating all allegations charging illegality (7 Mise 2d 419). There remained, and the amended complaint can charge, only improvidence, lack of due care and prudence with respect to the leases, the expenditures made in connection therewith and the acquisition of the area devoted to parking use or planted in grass until developed. Defendant has the right that it be established that no *217cause of action is asserted against it as distinguished from claims stated in its behalf and resting on those charges. "While the matter of divestment is explicitly stated in the prayer for relief alone, yet it must be presumed that the allegations of the amended complaint purport to support subdivisions (a) and (b) of the prayer. Not only has leave not been granted to assert such a cause, but such a purported cause is not sufficiently stated. Divestment is a matter of present judgment in present conditions and to support such relief the complaint must factually allege that conditions are appropriate thereto. This the complaint fails to do. Moreover, regardless of the form of the prayer for relief, the company is asked to make divestment of an investment already found to be legal. It is not for the bondholder to advise the company through its board what its policies of investment or retention of investment should be. If, with respect thereto, a complaint can be stated which, by its allegations, will survive the rule of business judgment, then the relief is against the errant directors for damages. Subject to ruling upon the objections raised by the defendant-directors by their companion motion (16 Mise 2d 214), this complaint must be deemed to state only a cause against them. The complaint is dismissed as against the defendant The Equitable Life Assurance Society which, nevertheless, remains as a nominal party.

Settle order.
#### Sterling HAYES v. DEPARTMENT OF POLICE.

No. 88-C-0119.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 12, 1988.

In re Police, Dept, of; applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. CA-7469, City of New Orleans Civil Service Commission.

Prior report: La.App., 518 So.2d 18.

Denied.
#### Willie E. WILLIAMS v. NEWELL PAPER COMPANY OF MERIDIAN, INC.

No. 57673.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

April 27, 1988.

Dan Angero, Ray & Cobb, Meridian, for appellant.

Arlo Temple, Meridian, for appellee.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Lauderdale County; Lester F. Williamson, Judge.

Before HAWKINS, P.J., and PRATHER and ANDERSON, JJ.

AFFIRMED.
S. Con. Res. 6 Agreed to February 9, 1999

One Hundred Sixth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE FIRST SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,

the sixth day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-nine

Concurrent Resolution

Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), That, as a mark of respect to the memory of R. Scott Bates,

Legislative Clerk of the United States Senate, all flags of the

United States located on Capitol Buildings or on the Capitol grounds

shall be flown at half-staff on the day of his interment.

Attest:

Secretary of the Senate.

Attest:

Clerk of the House of Representatives.
This meeting was requested by Andrew O’Hare, Portland Cement Association.

(See attached file: 2060AQ93_2012_5_22_PCA_Handout2.pdf)(See attached file: 

2060AQ93_2012_5_22_PCA_Handout1.pdf)
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 59 (Tuesday, March 27, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 18266]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-7286]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Investigation Nos. 731-TA-865-867 (Second Review)]


Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings From Italy, Malaysia, and 
the Philippines; Revised Schedule for the Subject Reviews

AGENCY: United States International Trade Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

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

DATES: Effective Date: March 21, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth Haines (202-205-3200), 
Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E 
Street SW., Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain 
information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal 
on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need 
special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact 
the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information 
concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its 
Internet server (http://www.usitc.gov). The public record for these 
reviews may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at 
http://edis.usitc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On February 6, 2012, the Commission 
established a schedule for the conduct of the expedited subject five-
year reviews (77 FR 10773, February 23, 2012). The Commission is 
revising its schedule.
    The Commission's new schedule for the reviews is as follows: the 
staff report will be placed in the nonpublic record on May 25, 2012; 
and, comments are due on or before May 30, 2012.
    For further information concerning these reviews see the 
Commission's notice cited above and the Commission's Rules of Practice 
and Procedure, part 201, subparts A through E (19 CFR part 201), and 
part 207, subparts A and C (19 CFR part 207).

    Authority: These reviews are being conducted under authority of 
title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published 
pursuant to section 207.62 of the Commission's rules.

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: March 21, 2012.
James R. Holbein,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2012-7286 Filed 3-26-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule

47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-10109

Summary Calendar

ONESIMUS RODGERS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

BOBBY E. SCOTT, in his Capacity

as a District Director, Dallas

District, for the IRS, and/or in

his Individual Capacity,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Northern District of Texas

(4:95-CV-649-A)

June 27, 1996

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, KING and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Onesimus Rodgers, a federal employee with the Internal Revenue Service, appeals the1 McAuliffe v. Rice , 966 F.2d 979 (5th Cir. 1992); 5 U.S.C. § 2302.

2 Broadway v. Block , 694 F.2d 979 (5th Cir. 1982).

3 Brown v. General Servs. Admin. , 425 U.S. 820 (1976).

4 Tolbert v. United States , 916 F.2d 245 (5th Cir. 1990).

5 Hampton v. Internal Revenue Serv. , 913 F.2d 180 (5th Cir. 1990).

2 dismissal, for failure of subject matter jurisdiction, of his suit against Bobby E. Scott, District

Director of the IRS, in an ac tion under the Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C.

§§ 702-04; Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e; and the fifth

amendment. Rodgers contends that the district court had jurisdiction because he exhausted

all necessary administrative remedies before filing his action in federal court.

The Civil Service Reform Act is a comprehensive statute which provides an integrated

system of administrative and judicial review of adverse personnel actions such as

discrimination. 1 Rodgers may not circumvent the detailed scheme of the CSRA by invoking

the more general APA. 2 Title VII is the exclusive judicial remedy for a federal employee’s

claim of discrimination. 3 Rodgers failed to exhaust his administrative remedies under this

legislative scheme thereby precluding judicial review. 4

Rodgers contends that the district court erred in dismissing the action against Scott

in his individual capacity. Rodgers may not trump the administrative exhaustion

requirements by bringing a tort action against his supervisor individually. 5

Rodgers also m aintains that the district court abused its discretion in granting

defendant’s motion to transfer venue from the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division,6 See Caldwell v. Palmetto State Sav. Bank , 811 F.2d 916 (5th Cir. 1987); 42 U.S.C.

§ 2000e-5(f)(3).

3 to the Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth Division. The district court did not abuse its

discretion in granting that motion because the action properly could have been brought in the

Fort Worth Division. 6

AFFIRMED.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 162 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

106th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. CON. RES. 162

     To direct the Clerk of the House of Representatives to make a 
               correction in the enrollment of H.R. 4577.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

           December 15 (legislative day, September 22), 2000

    Mr. Stevens (for himself and Mr. Byrd) submitted the following 
       concurrent resolution; which was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
     To direct the Clerk of the House of Representatives to make a 
               correction in the enrollment of H.R. 4577.

    Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), 
That the Clerk of the House of Representatives, in the enrollment of 
the bill (H.R. 4577), making appropriations for the Departments of 
Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and related agencies 
for the fiscal year ending September 2001, and for other purposes, 
shall make the following correction:
            In section 1(a)(4), before the period at the end, insert 
        the following: ``, except that the text of H.R. 5666, as so 
        enacted, shall not include section 123 (relating to the 
        enactment of H.R. 4904)''.
                                 <all>
```
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT UNITED STATES OF AM ERIC A, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. OSWALDO OR OZC O SAUC EDA, a . k.a . Oswa ldo Oroz c o, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 14-50373

D.C . No. 2:14-c r-00199-R GK M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia R . Ga ry Kla usne r, Distric t

Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Oc tobe r 14, 2015 * * B e fore : SILVERM AN, B YB EE, a nd WATFORD, C irc uit Judge s. Oswa ldo Oroz c o Sa

uc e da a ppe a ls from

the distric t

c ourt’ s judgm e nt a

nd c ha lle nge s his guilty-ple a c onvic tion a

nd 46-m onth se nte nc e for be ing a n ille ga l a lie n found in the

Unite d Stat e s following de porta tion, in viola

tion of 8 U.S.C . 

# FIL ED OCT 19 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).§ 1326. Pursua nt to Ande rs v . C

alifornia , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Oroz c o Sa uc e da ’ s c ounse l ha s file d a

brie f stating tha

t the re are no grounds for re lie f, a long with a m otion to withdra

w a s c ounse l of re c ord. W e hav e provide d Oroz c o Sa uc e da the opportunity

to filea pro se supple m e nta l brie f. No pro sesupple m e nta l brie f or answe ring brie f ha s be e n file d. Oroz c o Sa

uc e da wa ive d his right to a

ppe a l his c onvic t ion, with the e xc e ption of a

n a ppe a l ba se d on a

c la im tha t his ple a wa s involunta

ry . He a lso wa ive d the right to a

ppe a l his sente nc e , with thee xc e ption of thec ourt’ s c a lc ulat ion of his c rim ina l history c ate gory . Our indep e nde nt re vie w of the re c ord pursua nt to Pe n s on v . Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), disc lose s no a rgua ble grounds for re lie f a s to Oroz c o Sa

uc e da ’ s ple a

or the c rim ina l history

c at e gory c a lc ulate d by the c ourt. W e the re fore a ffirm a s to thoseissue s . W e dismiss there m a inde r of the a ppe a l in light of the

va lid a ppe a l wa i ve r. Se eUnite d State s v . W atson , 582 F.3d 974, 988 (9th C ir. 2009). C ounse l’ s m otion to withdra w is G RANT E D. AFFIRM E D in par t; DISM ISSE D in par t.

1 4 - 5 0 3 7 3 2
----

|   | 1. | The      Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and |
|--------|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

| /s/      L. Paul Latham                                       |
|---------------------------------------------------------------|
| L.      Paul Latham                                           |
| President      and Chief Executive Officer                    |
| of      Southwest Royalties, Inc., the                        |
| Managing      General Partner of                              |
| Southwest      Royalties Institutional Income Fund IX-B, L.P. |
|                                                          |
| March      28, 2008                                           |
|                                                          |
|                                                          |
| /s/      Mel G. Riggs                                         |
| Mel      G. Riggs                                             |
| Vice      President and Chief Financial Officer of            |
| Southwest      Royalties, Inc., the                           |
| Managing      General Partner of                              |
| Southwest      Royalties Institutional Income Fund IX-B, L.P. |
|                                                          |
| March      28, 2008                                           |
#### In re Isabella FREDERICK.

No. 4-86-1836.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

June 10, 1987.

*45Nancy A. Trease of Legal Aid Service of Broward County, Inc., Fort Lauderdale, for appellant Isabella Frederick.

No appearance for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Reversed. We hold that the provisions of section 744.331(4), Florida Statutes (1985) are mandatory and require an actual hearing to determine competency as outlined in the provisions of the section. The requirement for a hearing may not be waived by counsel for the alleged incompetent. Cf*. In re*Keene, 343 So.2d 916 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977).

ANSTEAD, DELL and GUNTHER, JJ., concur.
**2010-2012 DATA**

Site ID Cont

POCSite Name m int min for intercept (15.05-(17.32*m) or >-2) max for intercept

(15.05-(13.2*m) or <2) 06-073-0003 2 El Cajon 1.10 2.35 -2 0.53

06-073-1010 2San DiegoDowntown (Beardsley) 1.08 1.47 -2 0.794 06-073-1002 3 Escondido 1.10 0.80 -2 0.53 06-073-1002 4Escondido 1.15 1.77 -2 -0.13

**2011-2013 DATA**

POCSite Name m int min for intercept (15.05-(17.32*m) or >-2) max for intercept

(15.05-(13.2*m) or <2) 06-073-0003 2 El Cajon 1.13 1.98 -2 0.134

06-073-1010 2San DiegoDowntown (Beardsley) 1.08 1.16 -2 0.794 06-073-1002 3 Escondido 1.1 0.35 -2 0.53 06-073-1002 4Escondido 1.14 1.91 -2 0.002 **Data pulled from EPA comparison tool on 5/14/2014 (http://www.epa.gov/airquality/airdata/ad_rep_frmvfem.html)**slope criteria met?intercept criteria met? bias

criteria met Yes No No

Yes No No Yes No No No No No

slope criteria met?intercept

criteria met? bias

criteria met No No No

Yes No No Yes Yes Yes No No No **Data pulled from EPA comparison tool on 5/14/2014 (http://www.epa.gov/airquality/airdata/ad_rep_frmvfem.html)**