alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
•j]"AT!0:i 

RDM PILOT/GUIDE, LTD. 

420 Frwt Street - Ketchikan, AK 99901 

phoac: 907-225-1974 

E-nuUk bqibm Jn(Slrd>ipilotcoBi 

Web: www.alukaseapluetoan.coin 

Feb. 1,2010 

US Department of Transportation 

Docket Management System, M-30 

West Building Ground Floor 

RoomW12-140 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE. 

Washington, DC 20590 

Dear Sir: 

RdM Pilot/Guide, Ltd. Doing business at 420 Front Street, Ketchikan Alaska 99901, is 

requesting to petition the Federal Aviation Administration for a continuation exemption 

to permit aircraA flight operation under VFR Flight Rules (VFR) outside controlled 

airspace over water at an altitude below 500 feet. 

This exemption is readily used by our company and in both the Pacific Northwest region 

and here locally in Ketchikan, by other operators. In light of our previous operations of 

this type in South East Alaska and those in the Pacific Northwest, they can be carried out 

safely. With weather phenomenon of better flight visibility under the cloud base within 

this region, RdM Pilot/Guide, Ltd. will more safely and effectively serve the public 

interest through more reliable transportation in a safer flying environment for both the 

pilot and passengers. 

Our re^petition scope: 

Section of the FAR Affected -

Section 135.203(a)(1) provides, in pertinent part, that except when necessary for takeoff 

and landings, no person may operate an airplane under VFR, during the day, below 500ft. 

above the surface or less than 500fl. horizontally from any obstacle. 

RdM Pilot/Guide Ltd.*s supportive information is as follows: 

We conduct operations exclusively in a seaplane under our air taxi/commercial operator 

certificate No.Y3RAl 78J in South East Alaska. All applications for which this 

exemption is being sought are operations conducted during day VFR conditions at true 
airspeeds not exceeding 130 knots and confined to the waterways (inlets, bays and 

channels ) of Southern Southeast Alaska. 

RdM Pilot/Guide Ltd.'s continued exemption would not adversely affect safety of our 

flight. Gur operations under this exemption creates a level of safety equal to that for 

which the exemption is sought as Indicated by the existing exen^o n provided to other 

carriers. 

We hope that this request is accepted again with our purpose to strengthen the safety of 

our operations in Southeast Alaska. 

A diagram of our area on file with you high-lights our mapped area of operation. 

Thankyou for consideration in this matter...please contact us by phone at 907-225-1974. 

Or email: ryan@alaskaseaplanetours.com 

With highest Regards, 

RdM Pilot/GiudeO^td. 

cc. Doug Wahto, POI Juneau FSDO-05
IA 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 74 

Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United 

States Code, of the rule submitted by the Secretary of the Treasury 

and the Secretary of Health and Human Services relating to ‘‘State 

Relief and Empowerment Waivers’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

AUGUST 2, 2019 

Ms. KUSTER of New Hampshire (for herself, Ms. SCHAKOWSKY, Ms. BLUNT

ROCHESTER, Mr. TONKO, Ms. BARRAGA ́N, Ms. MATSUI, Mr. SCHRADER, 

Ms. MUCARSEL-POWELL, Mr. CA ́RDENAS, Ms. NORTON, Mr. RUSH, Mr. 

COOPER, Mr. O’HALLERAN, Ms. WILD, Mr. SUOZZI, Mr. WELCH, Mr. 

MCNERNEY, Mrs. DINGELL, Mr. TRONE, Ms. CASTOR of Florida, Mr. 

ESPAILLAT, Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York, Mr. COHEN, Mr. 

GARAMENDI, Mr. PAPPAS, and Mr. KHANNA) submitted the following 

joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and 

Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, for 

a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for 

consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of 

title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by 

the Secretary of the Treasury and the Secretary of 

Health and Human Services relating to ‘‘State Relief 

and Empowerment Waivers’’. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HJ 74 IH 

1 That Congress disapproves the rule submitted by the Sec2 retary of the Treasury and the Secretary of Health and 

3 Human Services relating to ‘‘State Relief and Empower4 ment Waivers’’ under section 1332 of the Patient Protec5 tion and Affordable Care Act (issued October 24, 2018, 

6 as a guidance and printed at 83 Fed. Reg. 53575, and 

7 a letter of opinion from the Government Accountability 

8 Office dated July 15, 2019, printed in the Congressional 

9 Record on July 17, 2019, on pages S4901–S4903, con10 cluding that such guidance is a rule under the Congres11 sional Review Act), and such rule shall have no force or 

12 effect. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A15D0304. ANTOINETTE EVANS v. IH4 PROPERTY GEORGIA, LP.

Antoinette Evans, defendant in the dispossessory case below, has filed an

application for discretionary review of the State Court’s order directing that the writ

of possession may be executed. This is the third time this case has come before us,

and, as discussed below, we lack jurisdiction to consider Evans’s application.

1

The case began in magistrate court. The parties reached a consent agreement,

and the magistrate court entered a corresponding judgment. Nonetheless, Evans

appealed. The magistrate court dismissed Evans’s appeal, because she (1) had not

first moved to set aside the judgment, and (2) had not paid the filing fee. Evans filed,

in this Court, an application for discretionary review of the magistrate’s order

dismissing her notice of appeal. See Case No. A14D0472 (decided on August 27,

2014). We transferred the appeal to the State Court, which dismissed the case and

issued a writ of possession to the plaintiff. Evans then filed a direct appeal to this

Court, which we dismissed based on Evans’s failure to follow the discretionary

appeal procedures. See Case No. A15A0948 (decided on February 12, 2015). 

After we dismissed Evans’s appeal, the State Court entered an order providing

that the writ of possession may be executed. Evans now challenges this order.

Under the circumstances, Evans is not entitled to discretionary review of the

1 Evans’s attorney,GradyRoberts, has a history of filing procedurally improper

appeals and applications in this Court. Once again, we caution him that, pursuant to

Court of Appeals Rule 15 (b), attorneys who file frivolous applications may be

subject to sanctions.

April 07, 2015
State Court’s order. The order did not create any substantive rights; it merely gave

effect to the court’s prior order. And because we have already dismissed Evans’s

appeal from that prior order, she is barred from challenging the substance of that

ruling. See Potter-Miller v. Reed, 302 Ga. App. 199 (2) (690 SE2d 215) (2010) (“The

effect of the dismissal of the first appeal from an appealable judgment was to affirm

the judgment of the trial court there excepted to and the trial court was without

authority to vacate or alter such prior judgment which was res judicata between the

parties.”);see also Echols v. State, 243 Ga. App. 775, 776 (534 SE2d 464) (2000) (“It

is axiomatic that the same issue cannot be relitigated ad infinitum.”). Accordingly,

we lack jurisdiction to consider this application, which is hereby DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

04/07/2015
Order entered April 7, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-15-00425-CV

IN RE REGINA JONES, Relator

Original Proceeding from the 192nd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-12-04128-K

ORDER

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DENY the petition for writ of mandamus. 

We ORDER relator to bear the costs of this original proceeding.

/s/ LANA MYERS 

JUSTICE
i i i i i i



### MEM ORA ND UM OP INION No
. 04 -0 9- 00 61 8- CR Alfre do RO DR IG UE Z , Appellant
v . T h e STA TE of

Te xas, Appellee Fr om the 38th J udicial District Court, Real County , Texas

Tr ia l Co ur

t N o. 03 -0 4- 87 1- CR Honora ble Camile G. DuB ose, Judge Pre siding PER C URI AM Sitt ing: Kar en Ang elini, J ustice

Sandee B ry an Mar ion, J ustice Phy lis J . Speedlin, J ustice Deliver ed and F iled: October 28, 2009 DI SMI SSED Appellant Alfr edo R odrig uez has filed a mot ion to dismi ss this appeal. The motion is signe d by both Rodrig uez a

nd his attorney
. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 42.2(a)
. We, theref ore, g rant the motion and dismiss thi s appea l. See id. PER C URI AM DO NO T PU B L I SH
**Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record**

**Plant ID 02654**  **Removed from Public**  **(Non-CBI) Docket**  **1 Copyright** 

**Flag 2**  **File Name Description**  

### 02654\02654_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist 

### 02654\02654_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted x 

### 02654\02654_Part A.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 02654\02654_Part B.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 02654\02654_Part C.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 02654\02654_Part D.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 02654\02654_Part H.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 02654\2654_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook



### 02654\Certification Statement Plant ID 02654.pdf Plant certification statement x 

### 02654\Supplemental Documents\Water Flow Diagram June 2010.doc Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

2Copyright documents are available from the docket. 1Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database
.
EXHIBIT
31.1


Certifications


I,
David Lichtenstein, certify that:




1.
            I have reviewed this quarterly
      report on Form 10-Q of Lightstone Value Plus Real Estate Investment Trust,
      Inc.;





2.
            Based on my knowledge, this
      report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to
      state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of
      the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading
      with respect to the period covered by this
  report;





3.
            Based on my knowledge, the
      financial statements, and other financial information included in this
      report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,
      results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the
      periods presented in this
report;





4.
            The registrant’s other certifying
      officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure
      controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
      15d-15(e)) for the registrant and
have:




a)
Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this report is being prepared;




b)
Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; and




c)
Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal
quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting;




5.
            The registrant’s other certifying
      officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of
      internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors
      and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of
      directors:





a) All
significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and
report financial information; and





b) Any
fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial
reporting.





November
16, 2009





/s/ David Lichtenstein
 
 David
Lichtenstein


Chairman
and Chief Executive Officer


(Principal
Executive Officer)
Exhibit 10.29

FORM OF
OFFICEMAX INCORPORATED
2005 Annual Incentive Award Agreement

ThisAnnual Incentive Award(the "Award"), is granted on February 10, 2005 (the "Award Date"), by OfficeMax
Incorporated ("OfficeMax") to                        ("Awardee" or "you") pursuant to the 2003 OfficeMax Incentive and Performance
Plan (the "Plan") and pursuant to the following terms:

1

---





You must sign this Agreement and return it to OfficeMax's Compensation Department on or before April 15, 2005, or the Award will be forfeited. Return your
executed Agreement to: Rosie Wenger, OfficeMax, 150 E Pierce Road, Itasca, IL 60143, or fax your signed form to 630-438-2463.

|OfficeMax Incorporated |  | Awardee
|---------------------- |  | -------
|By:                    |  |        

2

---



QuickLinks
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL SERVICES INCORPORATED, subsidiary of Ameriprise Financial Incorporated, Plaintiff

- counter

defendant

- Appellee,

v. IJEAMAKA EKWEANI, Wife ; HENRY EKWEANI, Husband , Defendants

- counter

claimants

- Appellants. No s . 15

- 15866 15

- 16417 D.C. No. 2:14

- cv - 00935

- DGC

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal s from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona David G. Campbell, District Judge, Presiding Submitted March 8 , 2017 ** Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS , Circuit Judges. In these consolidated appeals, Ijeamaka and Henry Ekweani appeal pro se

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously conclud es th ese case s are suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

MAR 20 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 15

- 15866

from the district court’s summary judgment and order granting attorney’s fees in Ameriprise Finan cial Services, Inc. ’s (“AFSI”) declaratory judgment action

. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de nov o. N. Cty. Commc’ns Corp. of Ariz. v. Qwest Corp. , 824 F.3d 830, 836 (9th Cir. 2016 )

. We affirm

. The district court properly grant ed summary judgment for AFSI and enter ed a declaratory judgment because AFSI demonstrated the Ekweanis ’ know ledge of an existing right to arbitrate, act s inconsistent with that right, and prejudice to
AFSI. See Martin v. Yasuda , 829 F.3d 1118, 1124 (9th C ir. 2016) (a party seeking to prove waiver of a right to arbitration must demonstrate knowledge of an existing right to compel arbitration, acts inconsistent with that existing right, and prejudice to the opposing party). Contrary to the Ekweanis’ contenti ons, t he district court had subject matter jurisdiction over this action because the “underlying substantive controversy” involved arbitration of Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981 claims. Vaden v. Discover Bank , 556 U.S. 49, 62 (2009) ; see also Medtronic, Inc. v. Mirowski Family Ventures, LLC , 134 S. Ct. 843, 848 (2014) ( when determining declaratory judgment jurisdiction, courts must look to “ whether a coercive action brought by the declaratory judgment defendant

. . . would necessarily present a federal3 15

- 15866

question ” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted) )

. The district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding $25,000 in attorney’s fees because the district court considered each of the factors set forth in Associated Indemnity Corp. v. Warner , 694 P.2d 1181, 1184 (Ariz. 1985) (in banc)

. See Med. Protective Co. v. Pang , 740 F.3d 1279, 1282 (9th Cir. 2013) (standard of review). AFSI’s request for attorney’s fees, set forth in its answering brief in Appeal
No. 15

- 16417, is denied.
15
- 15 866: AFFIRMED . 15
- 16417: AFFIRMED .
IV 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 15 

Expressing the commitment of the Congress to the Paris Agreement. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 8, 2019 

Mr. HUFFMAN (for himself, Mr. FITZPATRICK, Mr. BEYER, Mr. BLUMENAUER, Ms. BONAMICI, Mr. CARBAJAL, Mr. CARTWRIGHT, Mr. CASE, 

Mr. CASTEN of Illinois, Ms. JUDY CHU of California, Mr. CISNEROS, Mr. 

CLEAVER, Mr. CONNOLLY, Mr. COURTNEY, Ms. DEGETTE, Ms. 

DELBENE, Mrs. DINGELL, Mr. HASTINGS, Ms. HILL of California, Ms. 

JOHNSON of Texas, Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia, Mr. KEATING, Mr. 

KHANNA, Mr. KILMER, Ms. LEE of California, Mr. LEVIN of Michigan, 

Mr. LEVIN of California, Mr. LOWENTHAL, Mr. MALINOWSKI, Mrs. 

CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York, Ms. MENG, Ms. MOORE, Mrs. 

NAPOLITANO, Mr. MCGOVERN, Mr. MCNERNEY, Ms. NORTON, Ms. PINGREE, Mr. PETERS, Ms. PORTER, Mr. PRICE of North Carolina, Mr. 

QUIGLEY, Mr. ROUDA, Miss RICE of New York, Mr. SABLAN, Ms. SCHAKOWSKY, Mr. SCHIFF, Mr. SCHRADER, Mr. SERRANO, Mr. TONKO, Ms. 

WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Ms. WATERS, Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN, Mr. 

WELCH, Ms. WILD, and Ms. MATSUI) submitted the following concurrent 

resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Expressing the commitment of the Congress to the Paris 

Agreement. 

Whereas the challenge of climate change requires a global effort; 

Whereas the international community must work to both reduce greenhouse gas emissions as well as prepare for the 

effects of climate change; 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HCON 15 IH 

Whereas the United States plays an indispensable role in 

global leadership; 

Whereas the Paris Agreement sets goals that are not only 

achievable but necessary in order to move towards a 

pathway to limit temperature rise to below 2 degrees Celsius; and 

Whereas the United States is stronger when joining with 

global efforts to address climate change: Now, therefore, 

be it 

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 

2 concurring), That Congress reaffirms its commitment to 

3 the Paris Agreement and that the United States is still 

4 in and should not withdraw. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1123 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.1123

                     One Hundred Sixteenth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE FIRST SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Thursday,
           the third day of January, two thousand and nineteen

                                 An Act

 
To amend title 28, United States Code, to modify the composition of the 
     eastern judicial district of Arkansas, 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 ``Divisional Realignment for the 
Eastern District of Arkansas Act of 2019''.
SEC. 2. REALIGNMENT OF THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS.
    Section 83(a) of title 28, United States Code, is amended to read 
as follows:
``Eastern District
    ``(a) The Eastern District comprises three divisions.
        ``(1) The Central Division comprises the counties of Cleburne, 
    Cleveland, Conway, Dallas, Drew, Faulkner, Grant, Jefferson, 
    Lincoln, Lonoke, Perry, Pope, Prairie, Pulaski, Saline, Stone, Van 
    Buren, White, and Yell.
Court for the Central Division shall be held at Little Rock.
        ``(2) The Delta Division comprises the counties of Arkansas, 
    Chicot, Crittenden, Desha, Lee, Monroe, Phillips, and St. Francis.
Court for the Delta Division shall be held at Helena.
        ``(3) The Northern Division comprises the counties of Clay, 
    Craighead, Cross, Fulton, Greene, Independence, Izard, Jackson, 
    Lawrence, Mississippi, Poinsett, Randolph, Sharp, and Woodruff.
Court for the Northern Division shall be held at Jonesboro.''.
SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.
    This Act and the amendment made by this Act shall take effect on 
the date of enactment of this Act.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

IN RE 

READYONE INDUSTRIES, INC., 

RELATOR.

§

§

§

§

No. 08-15-00049-CV

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF 

MANDAMUS

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus 

against the Honorable Angie Juarez Barill, Judge of the 346th District Court of El Paso, Texas, 

and concludes that Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus should be granted. We therefore 

direct the trial court to rule on the motion to compel arbitration within thirty (30) days of this 

date, in accordance with the opinion of this Court. The writ of mandamus will issue should the 

court fail to comply.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 10TH DAY OF APRIL, 2015.

YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, J., and Barajas, C.J. (Senior Judge)

Barajas, C.J. (Senior Judge)(Sitting by Assignment)
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-6435

ANDROID VICSON TAYLOR,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director of Virginia

Department of Corrections,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, District

Judge. (CA-02-926-A)

Submitted: July 10, 2003 Decided: July 16, 2003

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Android Vicson Taylor, Appellant Pro Se. Robert H. Anderson, III,

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Android Vicson Taylor, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the

district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under

28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final

order in a habeas corpus proceeding unless a circuit justice or

judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)

(2000). When, as here, a district court dismisses a § 2254 petition

solely on procedural grounds, a certificate of appealability will

not issue unless the petitioner can demonstrate both “(1) ‘that

jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition

states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right’ and

(2) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the

district court was correct in its procedural ruling.’” Rose v.

Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 684 (4th Cir.) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529

U.S. 473, 484 (2000)), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 941 (2001). We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Taylor has not

made the requisite showing. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S.

322 (2003). Accordingly, we deny Taylor’s motion for a certificate

of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED