alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
SERVED: JUNE 11, 2015 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTER OF 

FISHER SCIENTIFIC COMPANY, LLC 

DOCKET NO. FAA-2015-1321 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT OF PROCEEDING 

;, ,, 

· .•. 'i; 

This proceeding (heretofore designated as Case No. 2011S0700457) has been assigned to 

Administrative Law Judge Richard C. Goodwin. All future pleadings and other communications 

regarding this proceeding shall be served on the Judge, the FAA Hearing Docket, and the other 

persons on the attached Service List. 

Attachment - Service List 
SERVICE LIST- BY U.S. MAIL 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence A venue, S. W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl 0001 

President 

Fisher Scientific Company, L.L.C. 

6722 Bickmore A venue 

Chino, CA 91708 

Jerry W. Cox, Respondent's Counsel 

Potomac Strategy Associates 

2729 Gallows Rd., Suite 401 

Vienna, VA 22180 

TEL: 703-757-5866 

ONE COPY 

Email: j cox@potomacstrategyassociates.com 

William Vines, Complainant's Counsel 

Office of the Regional Counsel, ASO-7 

Southern Region 

1701 Columbia Avenue 

College Park, GA 30337 

TEL: 404-305-5200 

FAJ(: 404-305-5223 

I 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

Office ofHearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-5121 Staff Assistant 

FAJ(: 202-366-7536 

Pocket No. FAA-2015-1321 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1000, Washington, 

DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGG--430. 

-2-
116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1487 

AN ACT 

To direct the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a special 

resource study of portions of the Los Angeles coastal 

area in the State of California to evaluate alternatives 

for protecting the resources of the coastal area, 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, 
2 

•HR 1487 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Santa Monica Moun3 tains National Recreation Area Boundary Adjustment 

4 Study Act’’. 

5 SEC. 2. RESOURCE STUDY OF THE LOS ANGELES COASTAL 

6 AREA, CALIFORNIA. 

7 (a) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 

8 (1) SECRETARY.—The term ‘‘Secretary’’ means 

9 the Secretary of the Interior. 

10 (2) STUDY AREA.—The term ‘‘study area’’ 

11 means the coastline and adjacent areas to the Santa 

12 Monica Bay from Will Rogers State Beach to Tor13 rance Beach, including the areas in and around 

14 Ballona Creek and the Baldwin Hills and the San 

15 Pedro section of the City of Los Angeles, excluding 

16 the Port of Los Angeles north of Crescent Avenue. 

17 (b) SPECIAL RESOURCE STUDY.— 

18 (1) STUDY.—The Secretary shall conduct a spe19 cial resource study of the study area. 

20 (2) CONTENTS.—In conducting the study under 

21 paragraph (1), the Secretary shall— 

22 (A) evaluate the national significance of 

23 the study area; 

24 (B) determine the suitability and feasibility 

25 of designating the study area as a unit of the 

26 National Park System; 
3 

•HR 1487 EH

1 (C) consider other alternatives for preser2 vation, protection, and interpretation of the 

3 study area by the Federal Government, State or 

4 local government entities, or private and non5 profit organizations; 

6 (D) consult with interested Federal agen7 cies, State or local governmental entities, pri8 vate and nonprofit organizations, or any other 

9 interested individuals; and 

10 (E) identify cost estimates for any Federal 

11 acquisition, development, interpretation, oper12 ation, and maintenance associated with the al13 ternatives. 

14 (3) APPLICABLE LAW.—The study required 

15 under paragraph (1) shall be conducted in accord16 ance with section 100507 of title 54, United States 

17 Code. 

18 (4) REPORT.—Not later than 3 years after the 

19 date on which funds are first made available for the 

20 study under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall sub21 mit to the Committee on Natural Resources of the 

22 House of Representatives and the Committee on En23 ergy and Natural Resources of the Senate a report 

24 that describes— 

25 (A) the results of the study; and 
4 

•HR 1487 EH

1 (B) any conclusions and recommendations 

2 of the Secretary. 

Passed the House of Representatives November 20, 

2019. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1487 

AN ACT 

To direct the Secretary of the Interior to conduct 

of the coastal area, and for other purposes. evaluate alternatives for protecting the resources Angeles coastal area in the State of California to a special resource study of portions of the Los
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.1

                      [SILVERADO LETTERHEAD APPEARS HERE]


$6,000,000                      PROMISSORY NOTE                  Tulsa, Oklahoma
                                                                  April 10, 1998

     FOR VALUE RECEIVED, the undersigned, SILVERADO FOODS, INC., promises to pay
to the order of LAWRENCE AND CINDY FIELD, at Tulsa, Oklahoma, the principal sum
of six million and 00/100 Dollars ($6,000,000.00), with interest thereon from
the date hereof until maturity at a rate per annum of Bank One, Oklahoma N.A.
prime plus 1  1/2%.  Principal and accrued interest shall be payable monthly
beginning May 10, 1998 with principal due at the earlier of August 31, 1998 or
at the time of the sale of a substantial portion of the assets of Silverado
Foods, Inc.

     This promissory note is a result of the note agreement between Lawrence
Field, Cindy Field and Bank One, Oklahoma N.A. and the cancellation of the note
agreement between Bank One, Oklahoma N.A. and Silverado Foods, Inc. in the
amount of $6,000,000.

     Silverado Foods, Inc. recognizes that after this note is executed, Lawrence
and Cindy Field will file a security interest in all trade receivables and
inventories of Silverado Foods, Inc.

     If all or any portion of the indebtedness hereby evidenced is not paid when
due, dissolution, insolvency, bankruptcy, receivership, or business failure of
maker, endorser and guarantor hereof, the holder may, without notice or demand,
declare this indebtedness to be immediately due and payable.

     The undersigned agrees that if, and as often as, this Note is placed in the
hands of an attorney for collection or to defend or enforce any of the holder's
rights hereunder or under any instruments securing payment of this Note, the
undersigned will pay to the holder its reasonable attorney's fees and all court
costs and other expenses incurred in connection therewith.

     This Note is to be construed according to the laws of the State of
Oklahoma.


By: /s/ Lawrence Field                      By: /s/ Dorvin D. Lively
    -----------------------------               --------------------------------
    LAWRENCE FIELD                              DORVIN D. LIVELY, 
                                                Chief Financial Officer
                                                SILVERADO FOODS, INC.

Date: April 10, 1998                    Date: April 10, 1998
      ---------------                         ---------------

By: /s/ Cindy Field
    -----------------------------               
    CINDY FIELD

Date: April 10, 1998
      ---------------
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1575 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1575

  To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to lengthen the statute of 
 limitations for enforcing robocall violations, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 6, 2019

 Mr. Van Drew introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to lengthen the statute of 
 limitations for enforcing robocall violations, 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 ``Robocall Enforcement Enhancement Act 
of 2019''.

SEC. 2. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR ROBOCALL ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS.

    (a) Provision of Inaccurate Caller Identification Information.--
Section 227(e)(5)(A)(iv) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 
227(e)(5)(A)(iv)) is amended--
            (1) in the heading, by striking ``2-year'' and inserting 
        ``3-year''; and
            (2) by striking ``2 years'' and inserting ``3 years''.
    (b) Use of Automated Telephone Equipment.--Section 503(b)(6)(B) of 
the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 503(b)(6)(B)) is amended--
            (1) by striking ``occurred more than 1 year'' and inserting 
        the following: ``occurred--
                    ``(i) except as provided in clause (ii), more than 
                1 year''; and
            (2) by striking ``liability.'' and inserting the following: 
        ``liability; or
                    ``(ii) in the case of a violation of section 
                227(b)(1), more than 3 years prior to the date of 
                issuance of the required notice or notice of apparent 
                liability.''.

SEC. 3. IMPOSITION OF FORFEITURES WITHOUT CITATIONS.

    Section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 
503(b)(5)) is amended, in the second sentence--
            (1) by striking ``or in the case of'' and inserting ``in 
        the case of''; and
            (2) by inserting before the period at the end the 
        following: ``, or in the case of a violation of section 
        227(b)(1)''.
                                 <all>
```
#### MURRAY FIRST THRIFT & LOAN CO., a corporation, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. John V. BENSON and Emily Sue Benson, Defendants and Respondents. MURRAY FIRST THRIFT & LOAN CO., a corporation, Third-Party Plaintiff and Appellant, v. George P. RUFF, Third-Party Defendant and Respondent.

No. 14684.

Supreme Court of Utah.

April 12, 1977.

*186Ricardo B. Ferrari and John A. Snow, of Van Cott, Bagley, Cornwall & McCarthy, Salt Lake City, for plaintiff and appellant.

Carman E. Kipp of Kipp & Christian, Salt Lake City, for Benson.

Donn E. Cassity of Romney, Nelson & Cassity, Salt Lake City, for Ruff.

MAUGHAN, Justice:

Before us is an order of the court below dismissing, with prejudice, counts two and three of plaintiff’s third-party complaint against George P. Ruff. We affirm that order, and award costs to Ruff.

This case was some sixteen months in preparation. All parties appeared at the appointed time for trial. A jury was impaneled, and opening statements were made. At this juncture a noon recess was called. During this recess plaintiff settled its claim against the Bensons — the Bensons agreed to transfer certain realty to plaintiff. As a result, plaintiff moved counts two and three of its third-party complaint, against Ruff, be dismissed without prejudice; for the reason plaintiff would not know “until we have liquidated the Benson property whether, and to what extent, Murray has been injured ... by Mr. Ruff.”

Counsel for Ruff objected, and moved the court to dismiss counts two and three with prejudice. He stated he had been some sixteen months in preparation, and his client was there ready to proceed. The court inquired of counsel for plaintiff, if he were ready to proceed, he said “no,” giving the reason quoted above. Thereupon the court took the action we have affirmed.

Rule 41(a)(2), U.R.C.P., invests the court with a reasonable discretion in the matter of dismissals. The record does not disclose this discretion to have been abused. *(Shaffer v. Evans,*10 Cir., 263 F.2d 134.)

ELLETT, C. J., and CROCKETT, WILKINS and HALL, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET AT SEPTEMBER 30, 1997 (UNAUDITED) AND THE STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE
QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1997 (UNAUDITED) AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS INCLUDED AS PART OF ITS
QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q FOR THE PERIOD SEPTEMBER 30, 1997
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                       1,616,451
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,195,517
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,811,968
<PP&E>                                      63,301,457
<DEPRECIATION>                              18,645,814
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              47,480,280
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          476,330
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  47,003,950
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                47,480,280
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,230,484
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,976,765
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,353,048
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.2  Certification Pursuant To 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, As Adopted Pursuant To Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002    The undersigned hereby certifies, in my capacity as an officer of NSTAR Electric Company, for purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:(i)the enclosed Annual Report of NSTAR Electric Company on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2006 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and(ii)the information contained in such Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of NSTAR Electric Company.  Dated: March 14, 2007By:/s/ JAMES J. JUDGE
James J. Judge
Senior Vice President, Treasurer
and Chief Financial Officer
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-6970

JARIUS DAMAR PHILLIPS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director of the Virginia Department of 

Corrections,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Arenda L. Wright Allen, 

District Judge. (2:13-cv-00337-AWA-LRL)

Submitted: October 21, 2014 Decided: October 24, 2014

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jarius Damar Phillips, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Andrew Witmer, 

Senior Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Jarius Damar Phillips seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate 

judge and dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012)

petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice 

or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not 

issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the 

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 

claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive 

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Phillips has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, 

we deny Phillips’ motion to appoint counsel, deny a certificate 

of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and 

dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the 
3

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process. 

DISMISSED
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. (S) 1350



(ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)



In connection with the periodic report of Dynegy Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q
for the period ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Bruce A. Williamson, President, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of the Company, hereby certify
as of the date hereof, solely for the purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:



|(1) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 at the dates and for the periods
indicated.
|--- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                     |  |  |  |     |  |                            |  |                                                             
|-------------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | -------------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------
|                     |  |  | 
|Date: August 4, 2004 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/    BRUCE A.
WILLIAMSON
|                     |  |  |  |     |  |                            |  | Bruce A. Williamson                                         
|                     |  |  |  |     |  |                            |  | President, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board



A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Dynegy Inc. and will be retained by Dynegy Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
NUMBER 13

- 10

- 005 44

- CR



### COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

- EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________

JEFFREY ALAN KOLAR A/K/A JEFFERY ALAN KOLAR

, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

____________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 2 52nd District Court

of Jefferson County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Garza, Vela, and Perkes

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant, Jeff r e y Alan Kolar a/k/a Jeffery Alan Kolar , by and through his attorney,

has filed a motion to dismiss his appeal because he no longer desires to prosecute it.

See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 42.2(a). Without passing on the merits of the case, we grant the

motion to dismiss pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.2(a) and dismiss the

appeal. Having dismissed the appeal at appellant's request, no motion for rehearing will2

be ente rtained, and our mandate will issue forthwith.

PER CURIAM

D o not publish.

See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 47.2(b).

D elivered and filed the

19th day of May, 2011

.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED APRIL 15, 2015

NO. 03-13-00237-CR

The State of Texas, Appellant

v.

Clayton Kyle Stone, Appellee

APPEAL FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 OF HAYS COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES PEMBERTON, FIELD, AND BOURLAND

REVERSED AND REMANDED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE FIELD

This is an appeal from the order granting a motion to suppress evidence entered by the district

court. Having reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was 

reversible error in the district court’s order. Therefore, the Court reverses the trial court’s order 

and remands the case for reconsideration of the motion to suppress. The State shall pay all costs 

relating to this appeal, both in this Court and the court below.
July 30, 2001

22547

#### Trinidad v. Allstate Ins. Co.

Vacated and Remanded