alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                         643,441
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               43,514,181
<ALLOWANCES>                               (1,956,313)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            45,106,820
<PP&E>                                      10,036,702
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             117,426,264
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       17,390,459
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         9,720
<OTHER-SE>                                  51,985,465
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            81,741,604
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               77,024,566
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           2,045,614
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              4,717,038
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,981,726
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,735,312
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,735,312
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.28
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1214 

To prohibit certain funds from being transferred or reprogrammed to plan, 

develop, or construct a new physical barrier along the Southwest border, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 13, 2019 

Ms. VELA ́ZQUEZ (for herself, Mr. GONZALEZ of Texas, Mr. MCGOVERN, Mr. 

CISNEROS, Ms. MOORE, Mr. ESPAILLAT, Mrs. DEMINGS, Mrs. WATSON

COLEMAN, Mr. GARAMENDI, Mr. LAWSON of Florida, and Mr. SERRANO) 

introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 

Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to the Committee on 

Financial Services, 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 

A BILL 

To prohibit certain funds from being transferred or reprogrammed to plan, develop, or construct a new physical 

barrier along the Southwest border, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Protecting Disaster 

5 Relief Funds Act of 2019’’. 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1214 IH

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON USE OF CERTAIN FUNDS FOR A 

2 NEW PHYSICAL BARRIER ALONG THE SOUTH3 WEST BORDER. 

4 Notwithstanding any other provision of law, none of 

5 the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by 

6 Public Law 115–56, Public Law 115–123, Public Law 

7 115–72, or Public Law 115–254 to the Department of 

8 Homeland Security or Department of Housing and Urban 

9 Development for activities relating to disaster relief or re10 covery may be transferred or reprogrammed to plan, de11 velop, or construct a new physical barrier along the South12 west border of the United States. Furthermore, none of 

13 the funds appropriated or otherwise made available to the 

14 Corps of Engineers by Public Law 115–123 may be trans15 ferred or reprogrammed under section 2293 of title 33, 

16 United States Code. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-20808 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus DERVAN VALENTINE COX, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-01-CR-92-1

-------------------- April 11, 2002 Before SMITH, DeMOSS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Dervan Valentine Cox appeals his conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm in and affecting interstate commerce in violation of 28 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Cox stipulated at the bench trial that the rifle found in his home had been manufactured in Connecticut; however, he unsuccessfully moved for a judgment of acquittal based on an insufficient nexus between the firearm and interstate commerce. On appeal, Cox argues that the evidence was insufficient to prove the interstate-commerce element of the 28 U.S.C. § 922(g)No. 01-20808 -2- offense because the evidence proved only that the rifle traveled across state lines at some point in the past. He acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by United States v. Daugherty , 264 F.3d 513, 518 (5th Cir. 2001), cert. denied , 122 S. Ct. 1113 (2002), but seeks to preserve the issue for Supreme Court review. This court has repeatedly rejected constitutional challenges to § 922(g)(1) convictions , concluding that the interstatecommerce element of the offense is satisfied by the possession of a firearm that was manufactured in a different state or country. See id . at 518 & n.12. As one panel of this court may not overrule or ignore a prior panel decision, Cox’s conviction is AFFIRMED. See United States v. Ruiz , 180 F.3d 675, 676 (5th Cir. 1999). AFFIRMED.
^:•pA^;liviF^^ 01-

February 11,2012 i'iAKSPORTATlOK 

':;:j:VlOPERS'!GNS 

Docket Management Facility ';^\j ^EC l b P ''• ''^^ 

U S Department of Transportation 

Docket No. FAA-2012-0089 

1200 New Jersey Avenue SA 

West Building Grand Floor. Room W-120140 

Washinuton, DC 20590 

/ 

To whom it may concern: 

This letter is in reference to Sun Country slot exemption Docket No. FAA-2012-0089. 1 am 

expressing my support for the continued service of Sun Country airlines between Lansing, M I 

and Washington, DC. The non-stop, daily flights between Washington Reagan National (DCA) 

airport and Lansing's Capital Region International (LAN) airport are important in contributing to 

the business and economic growth in the Greater Mid-Michigan/Lansing area At present, this is 

the only large aircraft service that flies to Washington Reagan National airport from here in 

Michigan, outside of Detroit. The LAN-DCA air service provided by Sun Country has been 

successful. Moreover, it is of great benefit to the consumers, as it allows them to save millions of 

dollars in airfare 

This exemption to Sun Country airlines will not adversely affect safety. Sun Country has been 

providing a safe service in and out of DCA. This exemption merely allows Sun Country to 

continue operating its existing safe service from LAN to DCA and DCA to LAN. 

Sincerely, - - — -

Mary Dawn Cel?z
AD Economic Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-2015-3929 Directorate ID: 2015-SW-031-AD

Helicopter Model: Airbus Helicopters Model EC130B4, EC130T2, AS350B, AS350B1, 

AS350B2, AS350B3, AS350BA, AS350C, AS350D, AS350D1, AS355E, AS355F, AS355F1, 

AS355F2, AS355N, and AS355NP helicopters.

Number of Helicopters (U.S. Operators): 1,132 Helicopters in the US Registry.

Reason: These actions are intended to detect cracks in a cross-bar and prevent failure of the 

cross-bar and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

Costs:

 Visually inspecting the cross-bar would require 16.5 work-hours for a labor 

cost of about $1,403. No parts would be needed so that the cost for the U.S. fleet would

total $1,588,196 per inspection cycle.

 Replacing the cross-bar would cost $1,630 for parts. No additional labor 

costs would be needed. 

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action?” Yes ( ) No ()

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? Yes ( ) Explain Below No ()

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities?

Yes ( ) No ()

Project Engineer: Robert Grant
Exhibit 12.1



THE BURLINGTON NORTHERN AND SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES

COMPUTATION of RATIO of EARNINGS to FIXED CHARGES

(in millions, except ratio amounts)

(Unaudited)



|                                                                                            |  | Year Ended December 31,
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | -----------------------
|                                                                                            |  | 2002                   
|Earnings:                                                                                   |  |                        
|Pre-tax income                                                                              |  | $                      
|Add:                                                                                        |  |                        
|Interest and fixed charges, excluding capitalized interest                                  |  |                        
|Portion of rent under long-term operating leases representative of an interest
factor       |  |                        
|Distributed income of investees accounted for under the equity method                       |  |                        
|Amortization of capitalized interest                                                        |  |                        
|Less: Undistributed equity in earnings of investments accounted for under the equity
method |  |                        
|                                                                                            |  |                        
|Total earnings available for fixed charges                                                  |  | $                      
|                                                                                            |  |                        
|Fixed charges:                                                                              |  |                        
|Interest and fixed charges                                                                  |  | $                      
|Portion of rent under long-term operating leases representative of an interest
factor       |  |                        
|                                                                                            |  |                        
|Total fixed charges                                                                         |  | $                      
|                                                                                            |  |                        
|Ratio of earnings to fixed charges                                                          |  |                        



Certain
prior period amounts have been reclassified to conform with the current period presentation.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

CHARLES MONTALVO,

 Petitioner

 v.

DAVID MARCIAL, ESQUIRE AND THE

MARCIAL LAW FIRM,

 Respondents

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 584 EAL 2014

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 10th day of March, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Nelson Arzon, Appellant.

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Curci, J.), rendered November 2, 1988, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (two counts) and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

*685Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that he was denied his right to a fair trial by the trial court’s failure to give a limiting instruction to the jury with regard to the People’s use of his prior crimes is not preserved for appellate review *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Thomas,*50 NY2d 467; *People v Yates,*160 AD2d 1036). We decline to exercise our interest of justice discretion in view of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant’s guilt *(see, People v Crimmins,*36 NY2d 230, 242; *People v Yates, supra).*

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, we find that he was not denied a fair trial by prosecutorial misconduct during the People’s summation. After the defendant objected to the prosecutor’s allegedly improper comment, the court gave the jury a curative instruction. Since the defendant failed to request any further ameliorative action, "it must be assumed that any defect was cured to the defense counsel’s satisfaction” *(People v Shaw,*150 AD2d 626, 627, citing *People v Medina,*53 NY2d 951, 953; *see also,*CPL 470.05 [2]). In any event, the prosecutor’s remarks were fair comment on the evidence *(see, People v Pugliese,*131 AD2d 789, 790; *People v Brown,*124 AD2d 667, 668). Thompson, J. P., Bracken, Eiber and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.
(L^F^St^e^Th^S TWcMog RECEIVED IN ]URTOFCRIIVIINALAPP^LS ^ •«icX\rt^'3=U yj\uu^\ V, d^H^rrr>- 

### mar a o20W i^^LL^~T^ nq en qui ADeiAcosta, Qerk Kfec-4 7£> 1Q(^ /\feeiL- ^Cc^n^.^^egJkl ^rxrerr- ^ GfrM'iKjAL- ^CPPfA<-^d Of"T&dfrS p^.Tfr* 17"5o&- 

### ^n^<^rlft»i .-^iqshviT^^ ^^ (I 1^£r
- I^Wo^— £^ ^W^itJ^^cnr'^^gp *T3F Pe-rW\o^( y<^- 

## r>,.'?^gerr,,owi>^ TaeV^/ (~"fe .G^.KJo l^>\qU-/r/~?T^- lAfe
- l4 / flO^ vU on-io-orYz^-gi£) T>a^vA^. Aocft5\=i-. 

### -L -tegsWgv^-r^ war^ q^= -r^e (^ougrb -ee^i)^ g^T W-Z (^JT -<r^^-—r>v^ T>>^:^. J^a\^ W^S Vi/OviT

15^ -T^gT^: WA=^ -AvSfT^syJ^.^ >JcAj f^oU-S^ grJ£>o,t^> V\< 

### •gge^j2K,tO^-y —T^y«r-^> T^P\^\Q^\ (jrJ£\ C^w^Oy^ -k -g^UwJie^ UU^kL ^
Exhibit 10.1
 
 DEFERRED STOCK AWARD AGREEMENT
 
      FIRST
 SECOND




---



##### 



-2-




---



##### 



-3-




---



##### 



-4-




---



##### 



THIRD
 FOURTH
 FIFTH
 -5-




---



##### 



SIXTH
 SEVENTH
 EIGHTH
 NINTH THE COMPANY AND THE
HOLDER EACH HEREBY WAIVE THEIR RESPECTIVE RIGHT TO A JURY TRIAL IN ANY ACTION ARISING OUT OF THE
STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN, THE DEFERRED STOCK AWARD OR THIS AGREEMENT.
 -6-




---



##### 



TENTH :
  SPECIALTY UNDERWRITERS ALLIANCE, INC.By:[Name of Holder]
 -7-
Subject: FW: Odds Ratio from your 2011 paper in EHP

Date: Monday, April 08, 2013 9:21:30 AM

From: Ebba Malmqvist [mailto:ebba.malmqvist@med.lu.se] 

Sent: Friday, April 05, 2013 8:12 AM

To: Luben, Tom

Subject: SV: Odds Ratio from your 2011 paper in EHP

Hi Dr. Luben,

The corresponding Odds Ratio for baby boys were (OR 1.01, 95% CI 0.91, 1.13).

If you are interested we have a new publication on the subject:

http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/121-a136/ News section

http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/1205736/ Article

Please let me know if I can be of further assistance.

Best regards, Ebba Malmqvist

Från: Luben, Tom [mailto:Luben.Tom@epa.gov] 

Skickat: den 4 april 2013 16:37

Till: Ebba.Malmqvist@med.lu.se

Ämne: Odds Ratio from your 2011 paper in EHP

Hi Dr. Malmqvist,

I am reviewing the literature on the association between exposure to NOx and reproductive and

developmental outcomes to support the next review of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards

(NAAQS). The identification of potentially at-risk populations is especially important. In your

paper, Maternal Exposure to Air Pollution and Birth Outcomes (EHP 119(4) 2011), you report that

the association between exposure to NOx during the third trimester of pregnancy is associated

with SGA among mother who did not change their residence during pregnancy (OR 1.09, 95% CI

1.01, 1.18). When stratifying by sex, the effect estimate was higher for baby girls (OR 1.12, 95% CI

1.01, 1.24). I was hoping that you would be able to send me the corresponding effect estimate for

baby boys; I was unable to locate this result in the paper.

Your collaboration would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you,

Tom Luben, PhD
National Center for Environmental Assessment

Office of Research and Development

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

RTP, NC 27711

(919) 541-5762
THE VISUAL AIDS ON THE FOLLOWING 

PAGES ARE FOR REFERENCE ONLY AND 

NOT INTENDED FOR OFFICIAL USE.

TO PURCHASE OFFICIAL VISUAL AIDS PLEASE CONTACT 

THE SPECIALTY CROPS INSPECTION DIVISION’S 

EQUIPMENT AND FORMS DEPOT 

USDA, AMS, FVP, SCI

831 MITTEN ROAD, ROOM 200

BURLINGAME, CA 94010

PHONE: 650-552-9073

FAX: 650-552-9147

EQUIPMENT CATALOG
LIMA BEANS 

Well filled, well developed. Fairly well filled, well deve

Fairly well filled, fairly well developed. Well filled, border fairly well d

U.S. NO. 1 

Lima Bea

(Previousl
LIMA BEANS 

Not fairly well developed but more than equivalent to 

Pod one-third filled with fairly well developed beans. 

Fairly well developed and at least one-third 

filled with fairly well developed beans. 

Fairly well developed and w

one bean to p

U.S. NO 2 

Cull – beans poorly developed

Lima B

(Previou
Exhibit 10.8
 Securities Purchase
Assignment and Assumption Agreement




---



##### 



SPECIALTY UNDERWRITERS ALLIANCE, INC.
 By:
    /s/ Daniel A. CacchioneName:
    Daniel A. CacchioneTitle:
    Senior Vice President, Chief Underwriting Officer RISK TRANSFER HOLDINGS, INC.
 By:
    /s/ Paul R. HughesName:
    Paul R. HughesTitle:
    Chief Executive Officer RISK TRANSFER PROGRAMS, LLC
 By:
    /s/ Paul R. HughesName:
    Paul R. HughesTitle:
    Chief Executive Officer
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. R AUL PREC IADO-OVALLES, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 14-50377

D.C . No. 3:13-c r-02792-B EN M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Southe rn Distric t of C a lifornia R oge r T. B e nite z , Distric t Judge , Pre s iding Subm itte d August 25, 2015 ** B e fore : M c KEOW

N , C LIFTON, a

nd HUR W ITZ, C irc u it Judge s. R a ul Pre c i a do-Ova l le s a

ppe a ls from

the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt a nd c ha lle nge s the 70-m onth se nte n c e im pose d following his guilty -ple a c onvic tion for im porta tion of m e tha

m phe tam ine , in viola

t ion of 21 U.S.C . §§ 952 a nd 960. W e have jurisdic tion under 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a nd we a ffirm . 

# FIL ED SEP 01 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).Pre c ia do-Ova lle s c o nte nds tha t the distric t c ourt re lie d on im prope r fa c tors to de ny his re que st for a

m inor rolea djustm e nt unde r U.S.S.G. § 3B 1.2(b). W e re vie w de novo the distric t c ourt’ s inte rpre tation of theGuide line s a n d for c le ar e rror its fa c tua l de te rm ination tha t a de fe nda nt is not a m inor pa rtic i pa nt. Se e Unite d State s v . Rodrigue

z -C astro , 641 F.3d 1189, 1192 (9th C ir. 2011). The re c o rd re fle c ts tha

t the distric t c ourt unde rstood a nd a pplie d the c orre c t le ga l sta nda rd, prope rly

c onside re d the tota lity

of the c irc um s ta

nc e s, a nd did not re ly

on im prope r fa c tors in deny i ng thea djustm e nt. Se e U.S.S.G. § 3B 1.2 c m t. n.3(A), (C ); U nite d State

s v . Hurtado , 760 F.3d 1065, 1068-69 (9th C i r. 2014), c e rt. de nie d, 135 S. C t. 1467 (2015). The re c o rd furthe r supports thec o urt’ s c onc lusion that Pre c ia do-Ova lle s fa ile d to c arry his burde n of e sta

blishing tha

t he wa s e ntitle d to thea djustm e nt. S

e eRodrigue

z-C astro , 641 F.3d a

t 1193. Pre c ia do-Ova lle s ne xt c onte n ds tha t the distric t c ourt proc e dura lly e rre d by im posing a pre -de te rm i ne d se nte nc e and by fa i ling to e xpla in these nte nc e a de quate ly . The se c onte ntions a re not supporte d by

the re c ord. La stly , Pre c ia do-Ova l l e s c onte nds tha t his sente nc e is substa

ntive l y unre a s ona

ble . The distric t c ourt did not a b use its disc re tion in im

posing the se nte nc e , whic h is 38 mo nths be low thebottom of the Guide l ine s ra

nge . Se eGall v . Unite d State s , 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). AFFIRM E D. 1 4 - 5 0 3 7 7 2
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 14 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. J. RES. 14

  Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to 
 limit the number of terms that a Member of Congress may serve to four 
         in the House of Representatives and two in the Senate.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 3, 2019

 Mr. Hollingsworth submitted the following joint resolution; which was 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
  Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to 
 limit the number of terms that a Member of Congress may serve to four 
         in the House of Representatives and two in the Senate.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled   (two-thirds of each House 
concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an 
amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be 
valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 
ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States 
within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:

                              ``Article--

    ``Section 1. No person who has served four terms as a 
Representative shall be eligible for election to the House of 
Representatives. Any period during which a person serves as a 
Representative pursuant to an election to fill a vacancy shall not be 
included as a term served by the person for purposes of this section.
    ``Section 2. No person who has served two terms as a Senator shall 
be eligible for election or appointment to the Senate. For purposes of 
this section, any period during which a person serves as a Senator 
pursuant to an election or appointment to fill a vacancy shall not be 
included as a term served by the person for purposes of this section.
    ``Section 3. No term beginning before the date of the ratification 
of this article shall be taken into account in determining eligibility 
for election or appointment under this article.''.
                                 <all>
```