alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# THE STATE OF TEXAS

M A N D A T E

*********************************************

TO THE 392ND DISTRIC T COURT OF HENDERSON COUNTY, GREETING:

Before our Court of Appeals for the 12th Court of Appeals District of Texas, on the 19 th
day of April, 2017 , the ca use upon appeal to revise or reverse your judgment between

GARY RAMSEY AND SAND RA RAMSEY , Appellant

NO. 12

- 16

- 00155

- CV; Trial Court No. 2013B

- 0254

Opinion by Brian Hoyle, Justice.

CATERPILLAR INC., Appellee

was determined; and therein our said Court m ade its order in these words:

“ THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the oral arguments, appellate record and briefs filed herein, and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that there was no error in the judgment.

It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the judgment of the court

below be in all things affirmed , and that this decision be certified to the court below for

observance. ”

WHEREAS, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court of Appeals

for the Twelfth Court o f Appeals District of Texas in this behalf, and in all things have it duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.

WITNESS, THE HONORABLE JAMES T. WORTHEN , Chief Justice of our Court of Appeals for the Twelfth Court of Appeals District, with the Seal thereof aff ixed, at the City of Tyler, this the 1 st day of December , 2017.

PAM ESTES , CLERK

By:

_______________________________ Chief Deputy Clerk
EXHIBIT 32.1

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 American Bar Association Members/State Street Collective
Trust (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Monet T. Ewing, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to and for purposes of 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(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 operations of the Company.

/s/ Monet T. EwingMonet T. EwingChief Executive OfficerAugust 14, 2009
allegiant· 

March 18, 2016 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Docket Management System 

400 7th Street, SW 

Room PL 401 

Washington, DC 20591-0001 

Subject: Exemption Extension Request 

Exemption No. 100648 dated March 20, 2014 from FAR §121.623(a)(d)(e) 

To Whom It May Concern: 

Allegiant Air, LLC (Allegiant) is writing your office to request an extension of exemption 

10064. This exemption allows Allegiant to conduct supplemental operations within the 

48 contiguous United States and the District of Columbia using the flight regulations for 

alternate airports as required by§ 121.619, and the fuel reserve regulations as required 

by§ 121.639 that are applicable to domestic operations. 

Sections of FAR Affected 

§121.623(a) provides, in pertinent part, that each person releasing an aircraft for 

operation under IFR shall list at least one alternate airport for each destination airport in 

the flight release. 

§121.623(d) provides, in pertinent part, that no person may release a flight unless he lists 

each alternate airport in the flight release. 

§121.643 provides, in pertinent part, that no person may release for flight or takeoff a 

non-turbine or turbopropeller powered airplane unless, considering the wind and other 

weather conditions expected, it has enough fuel -

1. To fly to and land at the airport to which it is released; 

2. Thereafter, to fly to and land at the most distant alternate airport specified in 

the flight release; and 

3. Thereafter, to fly for 45 minutes at normal cruising fuel consumption 

1201 N. Town Center Dr., Las Vegas, NV 89144 
§121.645(e) provides, in pertinent part, that the fuel requirements of §121.643 apply to 

air carrier's conducting supplemental operations within the 48 contiguous States and the 

District of Columbia with a turbine powered airplane. 

Discussion 

Allegiant Air, believes that granting this extension will continue to afford an equivalent or 

greater level of safety to that provided for in FAR sections 121.623(a) and 121.623(d), 

121.643, and 121.645(d). 

Summary 

Allegiant Air petitions the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for an extension of 

Exemption No. 100648 dated March 20, 2014. 

Sincerely, 

Michael Wuerger 

Director, Flight Safety, Regulatory Compliance, and QA 

Allegiant Air 

Michaei.Wuerger@allegiantair.com 

Direct: (702) 830-8248
I



## SERVED: March 27, 2014

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, DC .·. :·•1 : '**~!** - . :.,_ '"'"': I

• ' _;; j l

IN THE MATTER OF
ALASKA AIRLINES, INC.
FAA DOCKETNO. [TO BEASSIGNED] (Civil Penalty Action)
FDMS NO. FAA 2013-0287

HEARING NOTICE
NOTICEIS HEREBY GIVEN that testimony and evidence will be heard and considered on June 17, 18 and 19, 2014, inclusive, atthe United States District Court, WesternDistrict of Washington, Courtroom 18-206 B, 700 Stewart Street, Seattle, WA. 98101. 1 Theparties should vacate the courthouse on orbefore 5:00p.m. each day.
Settled cases will not beremoved from the docketuntil the Judge receives theproper pleading(s). Pleadings2 may be forwarded by fax, express mail, courier orpostal service3•

Richard C. Goodwin U.S. Administrative LawJudge
Attachment

- Service List

1The parties should confirm the courtroom with the Clerk's Office on the day ofthe hearing. 2 Materials filed in the FAA Hearing Docket (except for materials which are sealed) also available for viewing at http://www.regulations.gov. For additional information see: fl.tfp://dms.dqt.goy_. 3 The Administrator's civil penalty decisions, along with indexes ofthe decisions, the Rules ofPractice, as well as other materials relating to civil penalty cases, are available on the internet at: http:!lwww.faa.gov/ahout/office org!headquarters otfices/agclpo! adjudication/agc400/civil penalty/; see also: http:l!ec(r.gpoaccess.gov!cgilt/text/text-idx?c=ec{r&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Titlel4/ 14tab 02.tpl. In addition, Thomson Reuters/West Publishing publishes Federal Aviation Decisions. Finally, the decisions are available through LEXIS (TRANS library) and WestLaw 9FTRAN-FAA database. For additional information, see the Web site.

/SERVICE LIST ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

### Federal AviationAdministration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1000 1 

### TEL: 202-385-8229 FAX: 202-493-5142 ONE COPY 

### Joanna 

### L. Simon, Respondent's Counsel 

### Morrison & Foerster, LLP 12531 HighBluffDrive SanDiego, CA 92130-2040. TEL: 858-720-5100 FAX: 858-720-5125 Email: JoannaSimon@mofo.com Bradley Tilde, President AlaskaAirlines, Inc., Respondent 

### P.O. Box 68900 Seattle, Washington 96168 Robert Spitzer, Complainant's Counsel 

### FAA Attorney, Office ofRegional Counsel NorthwestMountain Region, ANM-7 Federal Aviation Administration 1601 Lind Avenue, S.W. Renton, Washington 98057 TEL: 425-227-1417 FAX: 425-227-1007 E-MAIL: robert.spitzer@faa.gov FDMS No. FAA-2013-0287 (Civil Penalty Action)

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin,Administrative LawJudge 

### Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 NewJersey Avenue, S.E. (E11-310) Washington, DC 20590 TEL: 202-366-5121 StaffAssistant FAX: 202-366-7536

1 Service was byU.S. Mail. For service in person orby expedited courier, use the following address: Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl000, Washington, DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.

2
Order filed, December 17, 2014

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 14

- 00872

- CR

____________ CARLOS ALBERTO BUS TOS , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 339th District Court

Harris County, Te xas Trial Court Cause No. 1355620



### ORDER
The reporter’s record in this case was due December 08, 2014

. See Tex. R. App. P. 35.1. The court has not received a request to extend time for filing the
record. The record has not been filed with the court. Because the reporter’s record has not been filed timely, we issue the following order.

We order Pam Knobloch , the official court reporter, to file the record in this appeal within 30 days of the date of this order

. PER CURIAM
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1235 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

<DOC>
116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1235

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           February 26, 2019

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security 
                        and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
  To provide that the term of office of certain members of the Merit 
 Systems Protection Board shall be extended by a period of 1 year, 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. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``MSPB Temporary Term Extension Act''.

SEC. 2. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD MEMBERS: TERM EXTENSION AND 
              LIMITATION ON SERVICE.

    The term of office of any member of the Merit Systems Protection 
Board appointed under section 1202 of title 5, United States Code, 
serving as such a member on the date of enactment of this Act shall be 
extended for a period of one year beyond the date the member's service 
would otherwise end under subsection (c) of such section.

            Passed the House of Representatives February 25, 2019.

            Attest:

                                             CHERYL L. JOHNSON,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
<PAGE>   1
                                                                     EXHIBIT 3.2

                            CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT
                                     TO THE
                          CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION
                                       OF
                                 TOM BROWN, INC.

         Tom Brown, Inc., a corporation organized and existing under the General
Corporation Law of the State of Delaware (the "Corporation"), does hereby
certify as follows:

         Pursuant to the provisions of the Delaware General Corporation Law, the
Board of Directors and the stockholders of the Corporation adopted an amendment
to the Certificate of Incorporation of the Corporation, which is set forth in
the following resolution in accordance with Section 242 of the Delaware General
Corporation Law, the purpose of which amendment is to increase the number of
authorized shares of Common Stock:

         "RESOLVED, That the Certificate of Incorporation of the Corporation be
         amended by changing the first sentence of Article Fourth thereof, so
         that as amended, the first sentence of Article Fourth shall read as
         follows:

                  FOURTH: The total number of shares of all classes that the
                  Corporation shall have authority to issue is 57,500,000, of
                  which 2,500,000 shares shall be Preferred Stock, par value
                  $.10 per share, and 55,000,000 shares shall be Common Stock,
                  $.10 par value per share.

         Except as specifically amended hereby, all other provisions of Article
Fourth shall remain in full force and effect.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Tom Brown, Inc. has caused this Certificate of
Amendment to be signed by Donald L. Evans, its Chairman of the Board of
Directors, and attested by Bruce R. DeBoer, its Secretary, this 25th day of May,
1999.

                                             TOM BROWN, INC.


                                             By:       /s/ Donald L. Evans
                                                -------------------------------
                                                   Donald L. Evans, Chairman of
                                                       the Board of Directors


ATTESTED:

    /s/ Bruce R. DeBoer
--------------------------
Bruce R. DeBoer, Secretary
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 78 (Monday, April 23, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 24228]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-9695]


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

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Proposal Review Panel for Social and Economic Sciences; Notice of 
Meeting

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-
463 as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the 
following meeting:

    Name: Site visit review of the Nanoscale Science and Engineering 
Center (NSEC) at University of California--Santa Barbara by the 
Division of Social and Economic Sciences (10748).
    Dates & Times: May 6, 2012; 7 p.m.-9 p.m., May 7, 2012: 8 a.m.-
9:15 p.m., May 8, 2012: 8 a.m.-3:30 p.m.
    Place: University of California, Santa Barbara, California.
    Type Of Meeting: Part open.
    Contact Person: Dr. Frederick Kronz, Program Director; Science, 
Technology, and Society Program; Division of Social and Economic 
Sciences, Room 990, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson 
Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230, Telephone (703) 292-7283.
    Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice and recommendations 
concerning further support of the NSEC at the University of 
California, Santa Barbara.
    Agenda:

Sunday, May 6, 2012

7 p.m.-9 p.m. Closed--Executive Session

Monday, May 7, 2012

8 a.m.-4 p.m. Open--Review of the NSEC
4 p.m.-5:30 p.m. Closed--Executive Session
5:30 p.m.-9 p.m. Open--Poster Session; Dinner

Tuesday, May 8, 2012

8 a.m.-9 a.m. Closed--Executive session
9 a.m.-10:30 a.m. Open--Review of the NSEC
10:45 a.m.-4:15 p.m. Closed--Executive Session, Draft and Review 
Report

    Reason for Closing: The work being reviewed may include 
information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including 
technical information; financial data, such as salaries and personal 
information concerning individuals associated with the MRSEC. These 
matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552 b(c), (4) and (6) of the 
Government in the Sunshine Act.

    Dated: April 18, 2012.
Susanne Bolton,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 2012-9695 Filed 4-20-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
<Page>

                                                               ERNST & YOUNG LLP


               CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


We hereby consent to the reference to our firm under the caption "Independent
Public Accountants" in the Statement of Additional Information and use of our
report dated February 17, 2000 on the financial statements of First Fortis
Life Insurance Company in this Post-Effective Amendment No. 11  (Form N-4 No.
33-71688) to the Registration Statement and related Prospectus and Statement
of Additional Information of First Fortis Life Insurance Company for the
registration of flexible premium deferred combination variable and fixed
annuity contracts.


Minneapolis, Minnesota                                     /s/ Ernst & Young LLP
April 17, 2002
-86 -84 -82 -80 -78 -76 -74

 36

 38

 40

 42

★

▲

▲

▲

▲

★

▲

▲

▲

▲

 500

 1000

 1500

 1000

18 12 06 00

08/01

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 01 Aug 06

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 38.92 N 77.01 W Meters AGL
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Nathan Waterman, Appellant.

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Andrias, J.), rendered February 8, 1989, convicting defendant after a jury trial of burglary in the second degree and petit larceny, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of imprisonment of 4 to 8 years and 1 year, *429respectively, and order of the same court entered April 16, 1990, denying defendant’s CPL article 440 motion to vacate the judgment, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant was discovered in a hospital patient’s room, looking through a closet. After a struggle with the patient, defendant was chased around the hospital and ultimately captured. After receiving the *Miranda*warnings, defendant admitted taking a pair of pants, but denied that a struggle had occurred. Defendant testified that when he had lost his way while looking for the psychiatric ward, had decided to sit in a chair, and as he moved the pants that were lying across the chair, a woman started screaming. Defendant said he fled in panic.

The trial court conducted a proper investigation before discharging a juror, whose worsening cold symptoms prompted her to go home during the Friday luncheon recess. (CPL 270.35; *People v Page,*72 NY2d 69.) The court’s personal observations established that the juror was quite ill, and inquiry by the court and defendant’s attorney established that it could not be ascertained when she expected to be fit for duty. *(Compare, People v Watkins,*157 AD2d 301.)

The showup identification of defendant by a member of the hospital staff was properly admitted into evidence. *(People v Duuvon,*160 AD2d 653, *affd*77 NY2d 541.) The showup was conducted within a short time of the incident when the witness’s recollection was fresh.

There is no basis to find that the trial court’s warning to the jury to avoid reports concerning a sensational criminal case, which involved the murder of a doctor at a different hospital, was inimical to defendant’s rights. Defendant’s counsel in fact requested the court to issue such an instruction, and he did not later voice any objection to what the court said to the jury.

The testimony as to out-of-court declarations by others showing why various witnesses joined the search and pursuit of defendant did not prejudice defendant’s right to a fair trial. *(People v Casanova,*160 AD2d 394, *lv denied*76 NY2d 786.) Defendant’s claim that he was denied his right to testify before the grand jury is unpreserved (CPL 190.50 [5] [a]), and there is no basis to disturb the trial court’s dismissal of defendant’s attack on the effectiveness of trial counsel. Defendant’s sentence is neither unduly harsh nor based on unproven charges. (CPL 390.30 [1]; 400.10 [2]; *Williams v New York,*337 US 241, *reh denied*338 US 841.) Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Rosenberger, Asch 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

MORGAN AMANDA LEPPERT , Appellant ,

v. Case No. 5D 16

- 2238
STATE OF FLORIDA , Appellee

. ________________________________/ Opinion filed March 27, 2017 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Pu tnam County , Patti A. Christensen , Judge. Valarie Linnen, Atlantic Beach, for Appellant. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Pamela J. Koller, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM. Morgan Amanda Leppert appeals her judgment and sentence for first

- degree murder, burglary with assault or battery, and robbery with a deadly weapon. Leppert
raises four issues: 1) her lengthy sentence violate s the Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment laid out in Graham v. Florida , 560 U.S. 48 (2010) ; 2) the trial court erred in not having a jury determine whether she killed, inten ded to kill,2 or attempted to kill the victim; 3) the trial court erred in finding that she killed, intended to kill, or attempted to kill the victim ; and 4) Leppert’s fifty

- year sentences for the burglary and robbery charges violate the Eighth Amendment be cause they are de facto life sentences that fail to provide her with a meaningful opportunity for release and
rehabilitation. We affirm on these issues

. As to the second issue, the trial court made the requisite finding required by section 775.082, Flor ida Statutes (201 6 ), that Leppert killed, intended to kill, or attempted to kill
the victim. Leppert contends that the jury was required to make this finding under the
statute

. In a strikingly similar case , this court recently determined that the trial c ourt did not err in making such a finding. Williams v. State , 42 Fla. L. Weekly D363 (Fla. 5th DCA Feb. 10, 201 7 ) (“Our supreme court has expressly authorized a trial court to make the factual determination as to whether a defendant actually killed, attempted to kill, or intended to kill a victim.” (citing Falcon v. State , 162 So. 3d 954, 963 (Fla. 2015) )). Lastly, we note that the trial court provided in Leppert’s sentence that she was eligible for a judicial review hearing after twenty

- five years for all three charges. Pursuant
to section 921. 1402(2)(d), Florida Statutes (2016), Leppert was entitled to a review o f her robbery and burglary convictions after twenty years. § 921.1402(2)(d), Fla. Stat. (2016). We accordingly reverse that part of the sentencing order and remand this case for entry of an amended sentencing order consistent with this opinion.
As we di d in Williams , we certify the following question to the Florida Supreme
Court as one of great public importance : DOES ALLEYNE V. UNITED STATES , 133 S. CT. 2151 (2013), REQUIRE THE JURY AND NOT THE TRI AL COURT TO MAKE THE FACTUAL FINDING UNDER SECTION 775.0 82(1)( b ), FLORIDA STATUTES (2016), AS TO3 WHETHER A JUVENILE OFFENDER ACTUALLY KILLED, INTENDED TO KILL, OR ATTEMPTED TO KILL THE VICTIM?

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; REMANDED ; QUESTION CERTIFIED

.
SAWAYA, BERGER and WALLIS , JJ., concur.
\0Ol-lt

ELECTRONIC RECORD

COA # 14-13-00261-CR OFFENSE: Poss with Intent to Deliver a Controlled Substance

STYLE: Brealand Dwavne Combs v The State of Texas

COA DISPOSITION: Affirmed

DATE: July 17, 2014 Publish: No

COUNTY: Harris

TRIAL COURT: 178th District Court

TC CASE #:1287840

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

STYLE: Brealand Dwavne Combs v The State of Texas

CCA#

FRO sb Petition

FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IN CCA IS:

Sikjck

DATE:_

JUDGE:

/<?/**/.*)//

ffjU. U(AAa^~

Ld£__jL£_PETITION

FOR DISCRETIONARYREVIEW

is ~R?Ftjscrb

DATE

CCA Disposition:

DATE:

JUDGE: _

SIGNED:.

PUBLISH:

IC07W*

PC:

DNP:

MOTION FOR

FOR REHEARING IN CCA IS:

JUDGE:

ELECTRONIC RECORD
Dolan Chemical Laboratory

4001 Bixby Road

Groveport, OH 43125

T: 614-836-4221, Audinet 210-4221

F: 614-836-4168, Audinet 210-4168

http://aepenv/labs

Water Analysis

Form REP-703

Rev. 0, 4/2012

Location: Mountaineer Plant Report Date: 12/23/2013

Sample Number: 135047-001 Date Collected: 12/18/2013 Date Received: 12/18/2013

1st Stage Feed 

Parameter Result Units RL MDL Analysis By Analysis Date/Time Method

Data 

Qual

Selenium, Se 280 ug/L 0.5 0.2 DPC 12/20/2013 11:54 EPA 200.8

Sample Number: 135047-002 Date Collected: 12/18/2013 Date Received: 12/18/2013

2nd Stage Feed 

Parameter Result Units RL MDL Analysis By Analysis Date/Time Method

Data 

Qual

Selenium, Se 18.1 ug/L 0.5 0.2 DPC 12/20/2013 11:59 EPA 200.8

Sample Number: 135047-003 Date Collected: 12/18/2013 Date Received: 12/18/2013

Bioreactor Effluent 

Parameter Result Units RL MDL Analysis By Analysis Date/Time Method

Data 

Qual

Selenium, Se 1.7 ug/L 0.5 0.2 DPC 12/20/2013 12:04 EPA 200.8

THIS TEST REPORT RELATES ONLY TO THE ITEMS TESTED AND SHALL NOT BE REPRODUCED EXCEPT IN FULL WITHOUT WRITTEN 

APPROVAL OF THE LABORATORY. ALL TEST RESULTS MEET ALL OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ACCREDITING AUTHORITY, 

UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.

U: Analyte was analyzed and not detected at or above adjusted Method Detection Limit

J: Analyte was positively identified, though the quantitation was below Reporting Limit.

Brian Snyder, Chemist II

Email bssnyder@aep.com Tel. 614-836-4224

Fax 614-836-4168 Audinet 210-4224

Mountaineer Plant, 135047 Page 1 of 1