alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 117 (Thursday, August 2, 2012)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1392]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                  HONORING WESTERN NEW YORK OLYMPIANS

                                 ______
                                 

                        HON. KATHLEEN C. HOCHUL

                              of new york

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, August 2, 2012

  Ms. HOCHUL. Mr. Speaker, on July 27, 2012, Olympic athletes from all 
over the world paraded into the stadium in London to officially launch 
the 2012 Olympics.
   I am so proud to say that eight American Olympians hail from Western 
New York: volleyball player Matt Anderson, born in Buffalo; archer Jake 
Kaminski, from Elma; swimmer Ryan Lochte, born in Rochester; rower 
Meghan Musnicki, from Naples; rower Henrik Rummel, formerly of 
Pittsford; current number one ranked pole vaulter Jenn Suhr, from 
Churchville; 10-meter air pistol shooter Jason Turner, formerly of 
Rush; and two time U.S. Soccer Female Athlete of the Year Abby Wambach, 
from Rochester. Throughout their lifetimes of training, hard work, and 
sacrifices, these athletes embody what it means to be an American.
   They carry with them to London the pride of Western New York and the 
entire nation.
   As we wish them and the entire team good luck, my hope is that a 
sense of common purpose joins all of us as Americans during the 
Olympics.
```
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 27.1

<ARTICLE> 7
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE REPORT 
ON FORM 10-K OF IPC HOLDINGS, LTD. FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1997 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (AND THE 
NOTES THERETO) CONTAINED IN SUCH REPORT.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                           442,328
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                                0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                                  0
<EQUITIES>                                      86,685
<MORTGAGE>                                           0
<REAL-ESTATE>                                        0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                                 529,013
<CASH>                                           9,746
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                                   0
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                           2,593
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 585,019
<POLICY-LOSSES>                                 27,590
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                             26,462
<POLICY-OTHER>                                   1,202
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                                0
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                      0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           250
<OTHER-SE>                                     528,043
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   585,019
<PREMIUMS>                                     112,486
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                             29,883
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                             (3,616)
<OTHER-INCOME>                                       0
<BENEFITS>                                      14,708
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                     13,487
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                             8,676
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                100,320
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            100,320
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   100,320
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     4.01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     3.79
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                  28,483
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                             15,368
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                (660)
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                             (1,658)
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                              (13,531)
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                 27,590
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                              0
        

</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James RUEDA, Peter Rueda, Defendants-Appellants.

No. 92-3310

Non-Argument Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

April 4, 1994.

Marcia J. Silvers, Miami, FL, for defendants-appellants.

Cynthia Hawkins, Asst. U.S. Atty., U.S. Attorney’s Office, Orlando, FL, Tamra Phipps, Asst. U.S. Atty., U.S. Attorney’s Office, Tampa, FL, for plaintiff-appellee.

Before TJOFLAT, Chief Judge, ANDERSON, and BLACK, Circuit Judges.

TJOFLAT, Chief Judge:

In this criminal case, the Government twice moved the district court, pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 35(b), to reduce appellants’ sentences because of appellants’ extensive cooperation with the Government in several criminal investigations. (Appellants previously had pled guilty, and had been sentenced, pursuant to a plea agreement that required them to cooperate with the Government and required the Government, in turn, to advise the court of such cooperation.) The district court — without holding an evidentia-ry hearing — granted the first motion and reduced defendants’ sentences by *five weeks;*defendants’ motion to reconsider was summarily denied. On the second motion, defendants specifically requested an opportunity to present to the court the facts constituting appellants’ cooperation. The district court, again without holding an evidentiary hearing, summarily denied the Rule 35(b) motion.

Appellants now appeal, contending that the district court’s action amounted to an abuse of discretion. In its answer brief, the Government agrees: “The district court’s refusal to entertain the full facts of the defendants’ cooperation operated to deny them the full benefits of their Plea Agreements and constituted a gross abuse of discretion.”

We fully agree, *see United States v. Yesil,*991 F.2d 1527 (11th Cir.1992). Appellants have proffered facts amply warranting an evidentiary hearing.

We VACATE the judgment of the district court and REMAND for an evidentiary hearing.
# Unicoi - Appalachian Regional Commission

- Erwin Utilities: Enhancing Broadband in Unicoi County The town of&#160;Erwin, Tennessee is nestled in the mountains of Unicoi County (pictured above) and home to just over 6,000 residents. Though&#160;the area is abundant in&#160;undisturbed&#160;natural assets&#160;and&#160;access to major roadways,&#160;Unicoi is considered economically at-risk and&#160;has faced&#160;its fair share of challenges. After the coal-industry-related closure of&#160;a&#160;CSX rail yard in Erwin, around 300 jobs were lost—a devastating [&#8230;]The post Erwin Utilities: Enhancing Broadband in Unicoi County appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
- First Tennessee Development District Executive Director Chris Craig &#160;Email &#99;&#99;&#x72;a&#105;&#x67;&#x40;f&#116;&#x64;&#x64;&#46;&#111;&#x72;&#x67;The post First Tennessee Development District appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 120 (Monday, September 10, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H5729]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                          PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will lead the House in the Pledge 
of Allegiance.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore led the Pledge of Allegiance as follows:

       I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of 
     America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation 
     under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

                          ____________________
```
#### Amos J. JENNINGS et al., Petitioners, v. STATE of Oklahoma and James H. Harrod, County Attorney of Oklahoma County, Respondents.

No. A-13035.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

May 24, 1961.

*471Amos J. Jennings, William V. Jennings, pro se.

James H. Harrod, County Atty., John M. Amick, Asst. County Atty., Oklahoma County, Oklahoma City, for respondent.

BUSSEY, Judge.

Petitioners Amos J. Jennings and William V. Jennings bring an original proceeding in mandamus against the Oklahoma County Court requesting that this Court command said County Court to dismiss charges currently pending against petitioners, which charges are the basis of “hold orders” placed against them with the penitentiary authorities. Petitioners are prisoners in the State Penitentiary at McAlister, and the existence of the “hold orders” deprive them of certain privileges which would otherwise enure to them. The Oklahoma County Attorney admits that charges of Burglary in the Second Degree are pending against petitioners in the Justice of the Peace Court of the Honorable Elmo Mc-Callister in Oklahoma County, and that these charges are the basis of the “hold orders” placed against the petitioners.

On June IS, 1960, in Jennings v. Raines, Okl.Cr., 353 P.2d 147, 148, this Court, speaking through the person of the Honorable John A. Brett, decided a habeas corpus and mandamus proceeding brought by the identical petitioners involving a charge pending against them in Comanche County. In his decision, Judge Brett held that mandamus will not lie to require the Justice of the Peace to act where he does not have jurisdiction of the person of the accused. See, also, Application of Graham, Okl.Cr., 356 P.2d 110. In the case at bar, the Chief Deputy of the Criminal Division of the Oklahoma County Sheriff's Office stated by affidavit that the petitioners were not and had not been within the jurisdiction of Judge McCallister’s court at any time since the filing of these charges, and had not been served with process.

In the Jennings case, supra, Judge Brett outlined in detail the proper procedure to be followed by persons in circum*472stances like those of petitioners in the case at bar.

“Where a preliminary complaint is pending against a person in the Justice of the Peace Court in which case warrants have not been served, the Justice of the Peace Court is without jurisdiction to act in said cases and set same for hearing, but that does not mean that the accused is without relief for which he may proceed in the District Court of the County where the charge is filed by way of habeas corpus ad prosequendum, making the magistrate and the person having custody of the accused parties defendant, and should such efforts fail, original proceedings may be filed in the Court of Criminal Appeals.”

Sec, also, Thacker v. Marshall, Okl.Cr., 331 P.2d 488.

Consistent with the prior decisions herein referred to, we hold that the relief prayed for should be and the same is hereby denied.

NIX, P. J., and BRETT, J., concur.
# C_2011152EN.01001901.xml

| 21.5.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 152/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.5.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 152/19

---

Judgment of the General Court of 7 April 2011 — Intesa Sanpaolo v OHIM — MIP Metro (COMIT)

(Case T-84/08) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark COMIT - Earlier national figurative mark Comet - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) - Article 8(3) of Regulation (EC) No 216/96)

2011/C 152/33

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Intesa Sanpaolo SpA (Turin, Italy) (represented by: A. Perani and P. Pozzi, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Botis, Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by R. Kaase, J.-C. Plate and M. Berger, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 December 2007 (Case R 138/2006-4), concerning opposition proceedings between MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG and Intesa Sanpaolo SpA.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 19 December 2007 (Case R 138/2006-4) to the extent that it dismisses the claim made by Intesa Sanpaolo SpA in respect of the goods in Class 16; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 19 December 2007 (Case R 138/2006-4) to the extent that it dismisses the claim made by Intesa Sanpaolo SpA in respect of the goods in Class 16;

| 2. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders OHIM to bear its own costs, together with half of the costs incurred by Intesa Sanpaolo; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders OHIM to bear its own costs, together with half of the costs incurred by Intesa Sanpaolo;

| 4. | Orders MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 116, 9.5.2008.

1

---
# Notes

Creating a Culture of Health in Appalachia: Disparities and Bright SpotsAugust 2017Disparities Report Source DataThe data and source information in this file were created for the "Measures of Health Disparity" report, which is one of four quantitative and qualitative research reports in "Creating a Culture of Health in Appalachia: Disparities and Bright Spots". The disparities table contains data for the United States, the Appalachian Region, the non-Appalachian portion of the U.S., 5 county-based Appalachian subregions, 6 ARC county-based economic status categories, 5 ARC/USDA county-based rurality categories, the 13 Appalachian States, the Appalachian portion of 12 Appalachian States, the non-Appalachian portion of 12 Appalachian States, and 3,113 U.S. counties, for a total of 3,169 records.The trends table contains data for the United States, the Appalachian Region, the non-Appalachian portion of the U.S., 5 county-based Appalachian subregions, and 3,113 U.S. counties, for a total of 3,121 records.The data and source information in this file are in the public domain and may be distributed and printed without permission.Funding for this project was provided by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and the Appalachian Regional Commission. The non-profit Foundation for a Healthy Kentucky was the grantee and fiscal agent for the project. PDA, Inc. in Raleigh, North Carolina prepared this report in collaboration with the Cecil G. Sheps Center at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and the Appalachian Regional Commission.

# Sources

# Disparities Data

# Trends Data

# Trends Changes
<PAGE>   1



                                  EXHIBIT 21.1




The subsidiaries of Allied Holdings, Inc. and the place of incorporation or
organization are as follows:

Allied Automotive Group, Inc. - Georgia
Allied Industries Inc. - Georgia
Haul Risk Management Services, Inc. - Georgia
Link Information Systems, Inc. - Georgia
Allied Southwoods, Inc. - Georgia
Axis Group, Inc. - Georgia
Allied Systems, Ltd. - Georgia
Inter Mobile, Inc. - Georgia
Legion Transportation, Inc. - Georgia
Automotive Transport Services, Inc. - Georgia
Allied Systems (Canada) Company - Nova Scotia
Axis International, Inc. - Georgia
Axis Truck Leasing, Inc. - Georgia
Axis North America, Inc. - Georgia
Kar-Tainer International, Inc. - Florida
Canadian Acquisition Corp. - Georgia
RC Management Corp. - Delaware
GACS Incorporated - Florida
Allied Freight Broker, Inc. - Virginia
QAT, Inc. - Florida
OSCHO, Inc. - Florida
Terminal Service Co. - Washington
F.J. Boutell Driveaway Co., Inc. - Michigan
RMX, Inc. - Delaware
Transport Support, Inc. - Delaware
Commercial Carriers, Inc. - Michigan
B&C, Inc. - Michigan
Haul Insurance Limited - Cayman Islands
AH Industries, Inc. - Canada
Kar-Tainer International Limited - Bermuda
Axis Netherlands, LLC - Netherlands
Axis Netherlands, C.V. - Netherlands
Axis do Brasil Ltda. - Brazil
Axis Holdings Ltda. - Brazil
Axis Areta, LLC - Mexico
Areta SRL - Mexico



                                      1
# C_2010195EN.01001802.xml

| 17.7.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 195/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.7.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 195/18

---

Order of the General Court of 17 May 2010 — Volkswagen v OHIM — Deutsche BP (SunGasoline)

(Case T-502/08) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition - Withdrawal of opposition - No need to rule)

2010/C 195/29

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Volkswagen AG (Wofsburg, Germany) (represented by: H.-P. Schrammek, C. S. Drzymalla and S. Risthaus, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (represented by: S. Schäffner, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Deutsche BP AG (Gelsenkirchen, Germany)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 September 2008 (Case R 513/2007-4), concerning opposition proceedings between Deutsche BP AG and Volkswagen AG

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Holds that there is no need to rule on the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Holds that there is no need to rule on the action;

| 2. | Orders the applicant and the defendant to pay their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the applicant and the defendant to pay their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 44, 21.2.2009.

1

---
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 122 (Wednesday, September 12, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H5922]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

           By Mr. CLYBURN:
       H.R. 6379.
       Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant 
     to the following:
       Article I, Section 8, Clause 7 of the United States 
     Constitution.
```
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 113 (Thursday, July 26, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Page S5479]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                      RECOGNIZING THOMAS SULLIVAN

 Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I would like to take the 
opportunity to express my appreciation to Thomas Sullivan for his hard 
work as an intern in my Washington, D.C. office. I recognize his 
efforts and contributions to my office.
  Thomas is a native of Laramie, WY where he was homeschooled. He 
graduated from the University of Northern Colorado where he majored in 
business administration and accounting. He has demonstrated a strong 
work ethic, which has made him an invaluable asset to our office. The 
quality of his work is reflected in his great efforts over the last 
several months.
  I thank Thomas for the dedication he has shown while working for me 
and my staff. It was a pleasure to have him as part of our team. I know 
he will have continued success with all of his future endeavors. I wish 
him all my best on his next journey.

                          ____________________
```
# C_2010317EN.01000801.xml

| 20.11.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 317/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.11.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 317/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 30 September 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia — Spain) — Pedro Manuel Roca Álvarez v Sesa Start España ETT SA

(Case C-104/09) (1)

1

(Social policy - Equal treatment for male and female workers - Directive 76/207/EEC - Articles 2 and 5 - Right to leave for employed mothers - Possible use by an employed mother or an employed father - Mother self-employed - Exclusion of the right to leave for an employed father)

2010/C 317/14

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Pedro Manuel Roca Álvarez

Applicant:

Defendant: Sesa Start España ETT SA

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia — Interpretation of Article 13 EC and Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions (OJ 1976 L 39, p. 40), as amended by Directive 2002/73 (OJ 2002 L 269, p. 25) — National legislation conferring on mothers who are employees a right to leave for feeding an unweaned child, which may be exercised by the mother or the father in the form of a reduction in working time — Exclusion where the mother is self-employed and the father is an employee — Principle of equal treatment

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2(1), (3) and (4) and Article 5 of Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions, must be interpreted as precluding a national measure such as the one at issue in the main proceedings, which provides that female workers who are mothers and whose status is that of an employed person are entitled, in various ways, to take leave during the first nine months following the child’s birth, whereas male workers who are fathers with that same status are not entitled to the same leave unless the child’s mother is also an employed person.

---

(1)  OJ C 141, 20.06.2009.

1

---