alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
• V •! 

SERVED: DECEMBER 16, 2011 

U.S. DI?.PAR'I'MF.NT OF TRANSPORTATION • •rri<''^f nppjA^^ 

OFFICE OF HFARFNGS ^ ' " "' '^^''^'"^'^^o 

WASHINGTON, DC /Oil tlFC | q A 9: UK 

IN THF MATTER OF 

BRICE E.THOMPSON 

"AA DOCKET NO. |T0 BE ASSIGNED] 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

FDMSNO. FAA-201I-III9 

NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT OF PROCEEDING 

This proceeding (heretofore designated as Case No. 2011 WPl 10014) lias 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 

V_„^-^I^onnie A. Yoder 

•Chief Administrative Law<Iudge 

/ 
FDMSNo. FAA-2011 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

SERVICE LIST 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building—Suite 2W1000' 

ONE COPY 

Brice E. Thompson, Respundeni 

P.O. Box 11632 

Reno, NV 89510 

Lindsay M. Nakamura, Complainanl 's Counsel 

Attorney, Office of the Regional Counsel, AWP-7.11 

Western-Pacific Region 

Federal Aviation Administration 

P.O. Box 92007 

Los Angeles. CA 90009-2007 

TEL: 310-725-7138 

FAX: '310-725-6816 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-2139 Attorney-Advisor 

202-366-5121 Legal Assistant 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

' Service was by U.S. Mail. Tor service in person or by expedited courier, use ihe following address: Federal 

Avinlion Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building—Suite 2WI000, Washington, 

DC 20591; Allention; Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. 

_ ? _
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 127 (Wednesday, September 19, 2012)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1556-E1557]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                         HONORING DAN ANDERSON

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. SAM GRAVES

                              of missouri

                    in the house of representatives

                     Wednesday, September 19, 2012

  Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I proudly pause to recognize the 
outstanding achievement of Dan Anderson of Blue Springs, Missouri. Dan 
was the principal of the Blue Springs Freshman Center in Blue Springs, 
Missouri, and is the Missouri Association of Secondary School 
Principals' Principal of the Year. This prestigious award recognizes 
Dan's ability to excel and impact in the ever-demanding role of 
principal and lead educator in all aspects of education.
  Mr. Speaker, Dan's impact in the areas of collaborative leadership, 
curriculum, instruction and assessment, and his personalization of the 
learning environment are stellar and recognized by his fellow 
educators, parents, and community. The selection was made from more 
than 600 high school principals throughout the Great State of Missouri. 
The Blue Springs Freshman Center is unique with 1,100 freshmen students 
within the Blue Springs School District. Dan was able to effectively 
position the talent of his team, motivate excellence in his school's 
curriculum, and clearly communicate purpose with the families and 
community in Blue Springs.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask that you join me in applauding Dan Anderson's 
outstanding professionalism and commitment to educating the American 
youth. I join with Dan's colleagues, family, friends, and students in 
congratulating Dan on his outstanding achievement, and wish him good 
luck in his future endeavors.

[[Page E1557]]

                          ____________________
```
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

July 1, 2015

No. 04-14-00562-CV

Jesus DE LOS SANTOS, Jr., Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Jesus Francisco 

De Los Santos, Deceased, and Juan De Los Santos, Individually,

Appellants

v.

FORD MOTOR COMPANY,

Appellee

From the 79th Judicial District Court, Jim Wells County, Texas

Trial Court No. 11-08-50394-CV

Honorable Richard C. Terrell, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Appellant's motion for extension of time to file motion for rehearing is hereby 

GRANTED. Time is extended to July 22, 2015.

_________________________________

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 1st day of July, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
II

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 1687

To provide for annual payments from the surplus funds of the Federal

Reserve System to cover the interest on obligations issued by the Financing Corporation.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

APRIL 18, 1996

Mr. KERRY introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs

A BILL

To provide for annual payments from the surplus funds

of the Federal Reserve System to cover the interest

on obligations issued by the Financing Corporation.

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 ‘‘Federal Reserve Sur5 plus Act of 1996’’.
2

•S 1687 IS

1 SEC. 2. TRANSFER OF FEDERAL RESERVE SURPLUS FUNDS

2 TO MEET FICO CARRYING COSTS.

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 7(a) of the Federal Re4 serve Act (12 U.S.C. 289) is amended by adding at the

5 end the following new paragraph:

6 ‘‘(4) FICO PAYMENTS.—

7 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—During the period be8 ginning on the date of enactment of the Federal

9 Reserve Surplus Act of 1996 and ending on the

10 date on which the Financing Corporation ceases

11 to have any obligations outstanding under sec12 tion 21(e) of the Federal Home Loan Bank

13 Act, the Board shall annually transfer (in addi14 tion to the transfers of funds required under

15 paragraph (3)) to the Financing Corporation,

16 from amounts in the surplus funds of the Fed17 eral reserve banks, an amount equal to

18 $3,000,000,000 divided by the number of cal19 endar years any portion of which falls within

20 such period for use in accordance with section

21 21(f)(1) of the Federal Home Loan Bank Act.

22 ‘‘(B) ALLOCATION.—The Board shall an23 nually determine, on the basis of such factors

24 as the Board considers appropriate, the manner

25 in which the amount of the obligation of the

26 Board under subparagraph (A) shall be allo-
3

•S 1687 IS

1 cated among the surplus funds of the Federal

2 reserve banks.’’.

3 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Paragraph (1) of

4 section 21(f) of the Federal Home Loan Bank Act (12

5 U.S.C. 1441(f)) is amended to read as follows:

6 ‘‘(1) FEDERAL RESERVE SURPLUS.—

7 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Amounts transferred

8 to the Financing Corporation by the Board of

9 Governors of the Federal Reserve System from

10 the surplus funds of the Federal reserve banks

11 in accordance with section 7(a)(4) of the Fed12 eral Reserve Act.

13 ‘‘(B) TREATMENT IN CASE OF BANK IN14 SURANCE FUND MEMBER ASSESSMENTS.—To

15 the extent Bank Insurance Fund members (as

16 defined in section 7(l)(4) of the Federal Deposit

17 Insurance Act) are subject to any assessments

18 under this subsection, the total amount of such

19 assessments which, but for this subparagraph,

20 would be imposed on all such members for any

21 year shall be reduced by the transferred amount

22 referred to in subparagraph (A) with respect to

23 such year.’’.

Æ
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1596 Reported in Senate (RS)]

                                                       Calendar No. 359
104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 1596

                          [Report No. 104-247]

      To direct a property conveyance in the State of California.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                March 7 (legislative day, March 6), 1996

 Mr. Murkowski (for himself and Mr. Johnston) introduced the following 
bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and 
                           Natural Resources

                             March 28, 1996

              Reported by Mr. Murkowski, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
      To direct a property conveyance in the State of California.

    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 ``Ward Valley Land Transfer Act''.

SEC. 2. CONVEYANCE OF PROPERTY.

    Effective upon the tendering to the Secretary of the Treasury of 
$500,100 on behalf of the State of California and the tendering to the 
Chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission of a written commitment 
by the State to carry out environmental monitoring and protection 
measures based on recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences 
subject to Federal oversight by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 2021, as amended, all right, title and interest 
of the United States in the property depicted on a map designated USGS 
7.5 minute quadrangle, west of Flattop Mountain, CA 1984, entitled 
``Location Map for Ward Valley Site'', located in San Bernardino 
Meridian, Township 9 North, Range 19 East, and improvements thereon, 
together with all necessary easements for utilities and ingress and 
egress to such property, including, but not limited to, the right to 
improve those easements, are conveyed by operation of law to the 
Department of Health Services of the State of California. Upon the 
request of the State of California, the Secretary of the Interior shall 
provide evidence of title transfer.
                                     

                                                       Calendar No. 359

104th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                S. 1596

                          [Report No. 104-247]

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

      To direct a property conveyance in the State of California.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             March 28, 1996

                       Reported without amendment
```
2004 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 11-3-2004 

# T urne r v . C ommi s sione r IR S P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 03-3173

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2004 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Re posit or y

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j amin . C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " T ur ne r v . C ommi s sione r I R S " (2004). 2004 D e cisio n s . P ape r 111. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004/111PRECE DENTI AL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT No . 03-3173 Turner v. Commi ss io ner

IRS

O R D E R
It i s herebyORD ERED , at the directi on of the Court , that the c aption i n the above case shall be amended to read as follows: ES TA TE OF TH EO DO RE R. T HO M PS ON , DE CE AS ED , BE TS Y T . TU RN ER , EX EC UT RIX , Appellant v. COMMISS IONE R OF I NTERNAL REVENUE FOR THE COURT, /s/ Marcia M. Waldron Clerk Dated: November 3, 2004 nmb/cc: (Michael J. Haungs, Esq.

(Jonathan S. Cohen, Esq. (John A. Nolet , Esq. (Thomas W. Ostrander , Esq. (V ictor F. K een , Esq .
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1783 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 1783

To amend the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States to provide 
  for duty free treatment for certain semi-manufactured forms of gold.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 20, 1996

   Mr. Craig introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States to provide 
  for duty free treatment for certain semi-manufactured forms of gold.

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

SECTION 1. ELIMINATION OF DUTY ON CERTAIN SEMI-MANUFACTURED FORMS OF 
              GOLD.

    (a) In General.--Subheading 7108.13.50 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States is amended to read as follows:
    

          ``     7108.13.50        Other...........  Free               Free (CA, E, IL,                        
                                                                         J, MX)            65%                  
                                                                                                              ''

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for 
consumption, on or after the 15th day after the date of the enactment 
of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### Ingmar R. EKMANIS, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Terry STEWART, Director sued in his individual & official capacity, Defendant—Appellee, and Bobby Gilbert, CO III sued in his individual & official capacity; et al., Defendants.

No. 02-16284.

D.C. No. CV-00-00298-FJM.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 10, 2003.*

Decided Feb. 13, 2003.

Before LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.

*

This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2). Accordingly, we deny Ekmanis's request for oral argument.

MEMORANDUM **

Ingmar R. Ekmanis, an Arizona state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court’s summary judgment dismissing his constitutional challenge to Arizona’s statutory scheme that allows inmates serving consecutive sentences for offenses committed before January 1, 1994 to take advantage only of earned release credits accumulated during the last of their consecutive sentences. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. After de novo review, *Webber v. Crabtree,*158 F.3d 460, 461 (9th Cir.1998) (per curiam), we affirm.

This court has held that no equal protection or due process violation arises from sentencing one group of prisoners under one statutory scheme and sentencing a later group of prisoners under a different statutory scheme. *See McQueary v. Blod-gett,*924 F.2d 829, 833-34 (9th Cir.1991). Accordingly, the district court properly granted summary judgment on Ekmanis’s claim that it is unconstitutional to apply the pre-1993 version of Ariz.Rev.Stat. § 41-1604.07 — renumbered in 1993 as § 41-1604.10 — to prisoners who committed their offenses before January 1, 1994, and the current version of Aeiz.Rev.Stat. § 41-1604.07 to prisoners who committed offenses on or after January 1,1994.

The district court also properly granted summary judgment on Ekmanis’s claim that it violates equal protection and due process to treat prisoners serving concurrent sentences differently from those serving consecutive sentences. *See Miller v. Albright,*523 U.S. 420, 433-45, 118 S.Ct. 1428, 140 L.Ed.2d 575 (1998) (rejecting equal protection claim because the challenged classes were not similarly situated); *Wolff v. McDonnell,*418 U.S. 539, 557, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974) (holding that there is no constitutional right to good-time credits).

We do not consider the district court’s dismissal of Ekmanis’s remaining causes of action because he does not challenge those rulings on appeal. *See Miller v. Fairchild Indus., Inc.,*797 F.2d 727, 738 (9th Cir. 1986) (“Court of Appeals will not ordinarily consider matters on appeal that are not *867specifically and distinctly argued in appellant’s opening brief’).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 178 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        S.178

                       One Hundred Fourth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE FIRST SESSION

         Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,
  the fourth day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-five

                                 An Act

 
To amend the Commodity Exchange Act to extend the authorization for the 
      Commodity Futures Trading Commission, 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 ``CFTC Reauthorization Act of 1995''.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

    Section 12(d) of the Commodity Exchange Act (7 U.S.C. 16(d)) is 
amended to read as follows:
    ``(d) There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as are 
necessary to carry out this Act for each of fiscal years 1995 through 
2000.''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
II

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 1754

To designate the United States Courthouse at 235 North Washington Avenue

in Scranton, Pennsylvania, as the ‘‘William J. Nealon United States

Courthouse’’.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MAY 14, 1996

Mr. SPECTER (for himself and Mr. SANTORUM) introduced the following bill;

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and

Public Works

A BILL

To designate the United States Courthouse at 235 North

Washington Avenue in Scranton, Pennsylvania, as the

‘‘William J. Nealon United States Courthouse’’.

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

3 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

4 The United States Courthouse at 235 North Wash5 ington Avenue in Scranton, Pennsylvania, shall be known

6 and designated as the ‘‘William J. Nealon United States

7 Courthouse’’.
2

•S 1754 IS

1 SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

2 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document,

3 paper, or other record of the United States to the Federal

4 building referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be

5 a reference to the ‘‘William J. Nealon United States

6 Courthouse’’.

Æ
#### Robert HOEKEL, Appellant, v. PLUMBING PLANNING CORPORATION, Appellee.

No. 93-1648.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 16, 1994.

Decided March 29, 1994.

Rehearing and Suggestion for Rehearing En Banc Denied May 13, 1994.

*840Raymond Howard, St. Louis, MO, argued, for appellant.

Mark G. Bums, Clayton, MO, argued, for appellee.

Before BOWMAN, HANSEN and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Robert Hoekel appeals the District Court’s1 judgment dismissing for lack of subject matter jurisdiction his action under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 621-634 (1988 & Supp. IV 1992). We affirm.

Plumbing Planning Corporation (Plumbing Planning) hired Hoekel as a plumber-laborer. In his complaint Hoekel alleged that in 1990, when he was 53, Plumbing Planning fired him and replaced him with a 30-year-old worker. Within 180 days of the firing, Hoek-el filed a charge of age discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The EEOC determined that the evidence did not establish a violation of the ADEA and notified Hoekel of his right to sue. Hoekel alleged that Plumbing Planning was an employer within the meaning of the ADEA, which defines an “employer” as having “twenty or more employees for each working day in each of twenty or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year.” 29 U.S.C. § 630(b).

At trial, Hoekel presented Plumbing Planning’s 1990 month-to-date report, which shows all of the company’s employees for each month of 1990 and each employee’s total hours worked and wages earned for each month. Edna Ross, co-owner of Plumbing Planning, testified that the report does not indicate whether twenty or more employees worked each day of twenty weeks in 1990, but that Plumbing Planning had more than twenty employees she considered to be full-*time*— i.e., those who would work five days a week when work and weather conditions permitted. The District Court dismissed Hoek-el’s complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, finding that the evidence presented failed to satisfy the definition of employer set forth in the ADEA. On appeal Hoekel argues that Plumbing Planning’s 1990 month-to-date report, combined with Ross’s testimony, proves that the company had twenty or more employees for each working day of twenty or more calendar weeks in 1990.

The burden of proving subject matter jurisdiction rests on Hoekel. *Nucor Corp. v. Nebraska Pub. Power Dist.,*891 F.2d 1343, 1346 (8th Cir.1989), *cert. denied,*498 U.S. 813, 111 S.Ct. 50, 112 L.Ed.2d 26 (1990). The month-to-date report does not prove that Plumbing Planning met the requirements of section 630(b). The report shows that for five months of the calendar year, Plumbing Planning employed twenty or more employees. Neither the report nor Ross’s testimony, however, establishes that the employees worked each day of a work week for twenty weeks. Thus, Hoekel failed to meet his burden of proof.

*841Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the District Court.

1

. The Honorable Jean C. Hamilton, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.