alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Brent R. Cole 

Law Office of Brent R. Cole, P.C. 

821 N Street, Suite 208 

Anchorage, AK 99501 

(907) 277-8001 

Attorneys for Redemption Air, Inc. 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

In the matter of: 

Redemption Air, Inc. 

) 

) FAA Case No. 2013AL030106 

) Docket No. FAA-2014-0115 

______________ ) (Civil Penalty Action) 

ORDER GRANTING REDEMPTION AIR'S MOTION 

TO COMPEL DISCOVERY, IMPOSE SANCTIONS, AND 

ORDER REDEMPTION AIR BE REIMBURSED 

Redemption Air, Inc. ("Redemption Air") having moved for an order compelling 

discovery, imposing sanctions, and requiring the Federal Aviation Administration 

("FAA") to reimburse it for expenses related to the FAA's abuse of discovery and any 

opposition thereto, 

IT IS ORDERED that Redemption Air's motion is granted. The FAA shall make 

Christina Bryant available to be deposed at a time and place convenient for the 

parties/Christina Bryant's testimony is precluded at the hearing in this matter. Further, 

Redemption Air is entitled to be reimbursed expenses, costs and reasonable attorney fees 

for the FAA's discovery abuse and for this motion. Further, Redemption Air is entitled to 

Order Granting Redemption Air 1S Motion 

to Compel Discovery, Impose Sanctions, and 

Order Redemption Air be Reimbursed 

In re: Redemption Air, Inc., Docket No. FAA-2014-0115 

Page I of2 
be reimbursed in the amount of$ ____ for expenses, costs, and reasonable attorney's 

fees for the FAA's discovery abuse, and for the motion to compel. 

DATED this __ day of December, 2014, at Valdez, Alaska. 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

-;\sf This is to certify that on this ~ day of December, 

2014, a true and correct copy of the foregoing document 

was 

~Mailed 

0 Hand-delivered 

¥J Faxed 

to the following: 

Original and one copy: 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl 000 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, SW 

Washington, DC 20591 

One copy: 

Craig Wm. Black, Esq. 

Office of the Regional Counsel 

222 West 7th Avenue, #14 

Anchorage, AK 99513-7587 

Craig.Black@faa.gov 

Fax: 271-2800 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law 

Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department ofTransportation 

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

Washington, DC 20590 

Richard.Goodwin@dot.gov 

Fax: 202-366-7536 

Order Granting Redemption Air's Motion 

to Compel Discovery, Impose Sanctions, and 

Order Redemption Air be Reimbursed 

HON. Richard C. Goodwin 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

In re: Redemption Air, Inc., Docket No. FAA-2014-0115 

Page 2 of2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                       3,504,992
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   10,095
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,515,087
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,515,087
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           42,397
<BONDS>                                        691,124
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,781,566
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,515,087
<SALES>                                      2,327,473
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             9,499,539
<CGS>                                          615,342
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  615,342
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               678,334
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              8,205,863
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          8,205,863
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 8,205,863
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   203.52
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   203.52
        

</TABLE>
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22

- 1849

CLARENCE BURNETT JENKINS, JR. , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. AMAZON.COM DEDC, LLC, Employer; AMERICAN ZURICH INSURANCE CO., Carrier , Defendant s - Appellee s
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Columbia

. Terry L. Wooten, Senior District Judge. ( 3:21

- cv - 03734

- TLW )

Submitted : December 15, 2022 Decided: December 19, 2022

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge , and WILKINSON and DIAZ , Circuit Judges

.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Clarence B. Jenkins, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-1849 Doc: 7 Filed: 12/19/2022 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM:
Clarence B urnett Jen kins, Jr., appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing Jenkins ’ civil complaint without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). We have reviewed the record and find
no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment

. Jenkins v.
Amazon.com DEDC, LLC , No. 3:21

- cv - 03734

- TLW (D.S.C. July 15, 2022) . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before t his court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED USCA4 Appeal: 22-1849 Doc: 7 Filed: 12/19/2022 Pg: 2 of 2
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 35 (Wednesday, February 21, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13084-13085]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-03509]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION

[Docket No. 24-06]


Notice of Filing of Complaint and Assignment; Impact Products, 
LLC and Safety Zone, LLC, Complainants, v. Lihua Logistics Company 
Ltd.--LLHP, Respondent

Served: February 14, 2024.
    Notice is given that a complaint has been filed with the Federal 
Maritime Commission (the ``Commission'') by Impact Products, LLC and 
Safety Zone, LLC (the ``Complainants'') against Lihua Logistics Company 
Limited--LLHP (the ``Respondent''). Complainants state that the 
Commission has jurisdiction over the complaint pursuant to 46 U.S.C. 
41301 through 41309 and personal jurisdiction over the Respondent as an 
ocean common carrier, as defined in 46 U.S.C. 40102(18), that has 
entered into a service contract, as defined in 46 U.S.C. 40102(21), 
with the Complainants.
    Complainant Impact Products, LLC is a corporation located in 
Toledo, Ohio. Complainant Safety Zone, LLC is a

[[Page 13085]]

corporation located in Guilford, Connecticut. Complainants are shippers 
as this term is defined under 46 U.S.C. 40102(23).
    Complainants identify Respondent as a company existing under the 
laws of Hong Kong with its principal place of business in Wan Chai, 
Hong Kong and as a global ocean carrier.
    Complainants allege that Respondent violated 46 U.S.C. 41102(c) and 
41104(a)(10) and 46 CFR 545.5. Complainants allege these violations 
arose from assessment of demurrage, detention, per diem, and yard 
storage charges during periods of time in which the charges were not 
just or reasonable because of circumstances outside the control of the 
Complainants and its agents and service providers, and from the acts or 
omissions of the Respondent that led to the assessment of these 
charges.
    An answer to the complaint must be filed with the Commission within 
25 days after the date of service.
    The full text of the complaint can be found in the Commission's 
electronic Reading Room at https://www2.fmc.gov/readingroom/proceeding/24-06/. This proceeding has been assigned to the Office of 
Administrative Law Judges. The initial decision of the presiding judge 
shall be issued by February 14, 2025, and the final decision of the 
Commission shall be issued by August 29, 2025.

David Eng,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2024-03509 Filed 2-20-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6730-02-P
#### RIMIKO CAFFE *v.*BENEDICT CAFFE

(12819)

Dupont, C. J., and Foti and Daly, Js.

Argued December 11, 1995

decision released January 23, 1996

*Gary Oberst,*with whom was *Joshua Rammerman,*for the appellant (defendant).

*Barbara L. Cox,*with whom, on the brief, was *William F. Gallagher,*for the appellee (plaintiff).

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from the judgment of the orders of support in a dissolution of marriage action. The defendant’s primary claim is that the court failed to consider the appropriate statutory criteria in determining its alimony and child support awards.

The court, in its original memorandum of decision and in its articulation of that decision, failed to cite any statute or to discuss or to state that it had considered the statutory criteria of General Statutes §§ 46b-81 and *17946b-82. The court’s only relevant conclusion was that the fault for the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage was that of the defendant. Although a court need not make express findings on each of the statutory criteria, or give equal weight to each of them, it should, at least, make some reference to the statute or statutes involved so that appellate courts will have guidance as to whether a court’s discretion is being exercised properly. See *Ippolito*v. Ippolito, 28 Conn. App. 745, 751, 612 A.2d 131, cert. denied, 224 Conn. 905, 615 A.2d 1047 (1992).

The judgment is reversed as to financial orders only and the case is remanded for a new trial.
Exhibit 32.1   Wings & Things, Inc.  CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 18 U.S.C. Section 1350  The undersigned executive officer of Wings & Things, Inc. certifies pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that:  a. the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Wings & Things, Inc. for the quarter ended June 30, 2009 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  b. the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Wings & Things, Inc.   Date: August 3, 2009/s/ Greg L. Popp
Greg L. Popp
Principal Executive Officer
Principal Financial Officer
#### Marcus Wayne SPRINGER, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 27632.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 25, 1955.

No attorney on appeal for appellant.

Dan Walton, Dist. Atty., Houston, Leon Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

PER CURIAM.

The offense is burglary; the punishment, seven years in the state penitentiary.

Appellant has filed his personal affidavit stating that he no longer desires to prosecute his appeal and requests that the same be dismissed.

The request is granted and the appeal is dismissed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
Article 5 Fin. Data Schedule for fiscal ended DEC-31-98
</LEGEND>

<S>                             		<C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   	12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>        		DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>				JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                     	DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                   	159
<SECURITIES>                        	0
<RECEIVABLES>                    		1683
<ALLOWANCES>                   		15
<INVENTORY>                       		2537
<CURRENT-ASSETS>          			4605
<PP&E>                                  	2033
<DEPRECIATION>                   		1355
<TOTAL-ASSETS>       	             	5297
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>  			     	1297
<BONDS>                                   0
<COMMON>                               	43
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY> 	0
<PREFERRED>                            	0
<OTHER-SE>                          	3907
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>			5297
<SALES>                                   11405
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                         	11405
<CGS>                                 	6644
<TOTAL-COSTS>                   		6644
<OTHER-EXPENSES>              		0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                    	0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                		45
<INCOME-PRETAX>                    		1138
<INCOME-TAX>                          	403
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                 	735
<DISCONTINUED>                      	0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                 		0
<CHANGES>                          		0
<NET-INCOME>                          	735
<EPS-BASIC>                          	.17
<EPS-DILUTED>                        	.17


</TABLE>
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1651 

To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to create a designation 

for property owners who take actions to reduce nutrient and sediment 

runoff into the Chesapeake Bay watershed, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 15, 2011 

Mr. SARBANES introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to create 

a designation for property owners who take actions to 

reduce nutrient and sediment runoff into the Chesapeake 

Bay watershed, 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 ‘‘Save the Chesapeake 

5 Bay Homeowner Act of 2011’’. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1651 IH

1 SEC. 2. DESIGNATION. 

2 Section 117(g) of the Federal Water Pollution Con3 trol Act (33 U.S.C. 1267(g)) is amended by adding at the 

4 end the following: 

5 ‘‘(3) DESIGNATION PROGRAM.— 

6 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 1 year 

7 after the date of enactment of the Save the 

8 Chesapeake Bay Homeowner Act of 2011, the 

9 Administrator shall develop and implement the 

10 ‘Save the Chesapeake Bay Home’ designation 

11 program. 

12 ‘‘(B) DESIGNATION REQUIREMENT.—The 

13 program under subparagraph (A) shall des14 ignate a property owner in the Chesapeake Bay 

15 watershed as a participant in such program if 

16 the property owner performs a specified number 

17 of items from a list of actions developed by the 

18 Administrator to reduce nutrient and sediment 

19 runoff into the Chesapeake Bay. 

20 ‘‘(C) TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOAD CRED21 IT.—The Administrator shall determine an ap22 propriate amount of credit for compliance with 

23 total maximum daily load requirements to 

24 award to a State or their designee based on the 

25 number of property owners in the jurisdiction 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 1651 IH

1 who have received a designation under the pro2 gram.’’. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS
FILF COPY OFFICIALNOTICE FROM COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS P.O. BOX 12308, CAPITOL STATION, AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711 

# fj/SJr \
8/27/2015 COA Case No. 12-14-00005-CR 

### FINLEY, JOSEPH Tr. Ct. No. 2013-0140 PD-1110-15 

### On this day, this Courthas granted theAppellant's Pro Se motion for an extension oftime in which to file the Petition for Discretionary Review. The time to file the 

### petition has been extended to Tuesday, October 20, 2015. NO FURTHER EXTENSIONS WILL BE ENTERTAINED. NOTE: Petition For Discretionary 

### Review mustbefiled with The CourtofCriminalAppeals. Abel Acosta, Clerk

12TH COURT OF APPEALS CLERK CATHY LUSK 1517 W. FRONT, ROOM 354 TYLER, TX 75701

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *
[No. 33926.

Department One.

February 4, 1960.]

#### *In the Matter of the Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus of*Kennedy Charley, *Petitioner,*v. B. J. Rhay, *as Superintendent of the State Penitentiary, Respondent.*
      *1*

*John P. Rowe,*for petitioner

*The Attorney General*and *Stephen C. Way, Assistant,*for respondent.

Reported in 348 P. (2d) 977.

Weaver, C. J.

Kennedy Charley was charged by information with the crime of second-degree burglary. Upon arraignment, he appeared in person, having waived counsel in open court, and entered a plea of guilty to the crime charged. He was sentenced to not more than fifteen years of confinement in the Washington State Reformatory. He has since been transferred to the Washington State Penitentiary.

Pursuant to Rule on Appeal 56 (5), RCW Vol. 0, his petition for a writ of *habeas corpus,*filed in this court, was *586referred to the superior court of the state of Washington for Yakima county.

After hearing, the trial court found, and appropriate findings of fact were entered

(1) That, at the time the alleged offense was committed, the petitioner was an enrolled member of the Yakima Indian Tribe;

(2) That the alleged offense was committed in the city of Toppenish, Yakima County, Washington, within the boundaries of the Yakima Indian Reservation and in “Indian country,” as that term is defined in 18 U. S. C. (1952 ed.) § 1151.

“Burglary” (which is to “be defined and punished in accordance with the laws of the State in which such offense was committed”) is one of the crimes enumerated in the Ten Major Crimes Act; hence, exclusive jurisdiction thereof is in the courts of the United States when the alleged crime is committed by an Indian in “Indian country.” 18 U. S. C. (1952 ed.) § 1153.

Our disposition of this petition is governed by our recent decision in *In re Wesley v. Schneckloth, ante*p. 90, 346 P. (2d) 658 (1959); *In re Roberts v. Schneckloth, ante*p. 105, 346 P. (2d) 668 (1959); and *In re Monroe, ante*p. 107, 346 P. (2d) 667 (1959).

The writ of *habeas corpus*shall issue, and respondent is ordered to release petitioner from custody.

Mallery, Rosellini, Ott, and Hunter, JJ., concur.
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1647 

To direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to carry out a pilot program 

under which certain veterans may submit claims for benefits under laws 

administered by the Secretary to any regional office of the Department 

of Veterans Affairs. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 15, 2011 

Mr. RUNYAN (for himself and Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to carry out 

a pilot program under which certain veterans may submit 

claims for benefits under laws administered by the Secretary to any regional office of the Department of Veterans Affairs. 

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 ‘‘Veterans’ Choice in 

5 Filing Act of 2011’’. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1647 IH

1 SEC. 2. PILOT PROGRAM ON SUBMITTAL OF CLAIMS TO 

2 ANY REGIONAL OFFICE OF THE DEPART3 MENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS. 

4 (a) PILOT PROGRAM REQUIRED.—The Secretary of 

5 Veterans Affairs shall carry out a two-year pilot program 

6 under which the Secretary shall permit a qualifying vet7 eran filing a claim for benefits under a law administered 

8 by the Secretary to submit such claim to any regional of9 fice of the Department of Veterans Affairs. The Secretary 

10 shall promptly notify each qualifying veteran of the oppor11 tunity to participate in the pilot program. 

12 (b) QUALIFYING VETERANS.—For the purposes of 

13 the pilot program under subsection (a), a qualifying vet14 eran is a veteran who would, except as provided under the 

15 pilot program, be required to submit a claim to one of 

16 five regional offices of the Department selected by the Sec17 retary based on below average performance. 

18 (c) REPORTS.— 

19 (1) INTERIM REPORT.—Upon the selection of 

20 the Secretary of five regional offices for the purposes 

21 of subsection (b), the Secretary shall submit a report 

22 to Congress that lists the offices selected and the 

23 Secretary’s rationale for selecting such offices. 

24 (2) FINAL REPORT.—Not later than 90 days 

25 after the completion of the pilot program under sub26 section (a), the Secretary shall submit to Congress 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 1647 IH

1 a final report on the pilot program that contains the 

2 Secretary’s recommendations with respect to the al3 location of resources among the regional offices of 

4 the Department. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-23-00042-CV

SCI Texas Funeral Services, LLC d/b/a “Funeraria Del Angel Buena Vista and Buena 

Vista Burial Park”

v.

Yvonne Hollenbeck

On Appeal from the

357th District Court of Cameron County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2022-DCL-04561

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes the judgment of the trial court should be reversed and the cause 

remanded to the trial court. The Court orders the judgment of the trial court REVERSED 

and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. Costs of the appeal 

are adjudged against appellee.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

October 19, 2023
Motion Granted; Abatement Order filed June 5, 2012.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-11-01063-CR

____________

EX PARTE SILVIO BOSCO LUNA

On Appeal from the 180th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 847994-A

ABATEMENT ORDER

This is an appeal from the denial of appellant’s application for writ of habeas corpus 

seeking to set aside appellant’s guilty plea pursuant to article 11.072 of the Texas Code of 

Criminal Procedure. The trial court is required to “enter a written order including findings 

of fact and conclusions of law.” Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 11.072 § 7(a). The record 

filed with this court does not include any written findings of fact and conclusions of law on 

the denial of appellant’s application. The proper procedure to correct the error is to abate 

the appeal and direct the trial court to make the required findings and conclusions. See

Tex. R. App. P. 44.4. Appellant filed a motion for extension of time to obtain the findings 

and conclusions. We grant the request and issue the following order:
2

We ORDER the appeal ABATED and remand the case to the trial court. The trial 

court is directed to reduce to writing its findings of fact and conclusions of law on the 

denial of appellant’s application for writ of habeas corpus and have a supplemental clerk’s 

record containing those findings and conclusions filed with the clerk of this court on or 

before July6, 2012.

The appeal is abated, treated as a closed case, and removed from this court’s active 

docket. The appeal will be reinstated on this court’s active docket when a supplemental 

clerk’s record containing the trial court’s findings and conclusions is filed in this court. 

The court will also consider an appropriate motion to reinstate the appeal filed by either 

party. Appellant’s brief shall be due thirty days after the appeal has been reinstated. 

No further extensions will be considered absent exceptional circumstances.

It is so ORDERED.

PER CURIAM
EXHIBIT 1






EXHIBIT 2
#### Thomas Edgar BARBER, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 28545.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 31, 1956.

• No attorney for appellant of record on appeal.

• Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

PER CURIAM.

Drunken driving is the offense, with punishment assessed át a fine of $50' and three days’ imprisonment in jail. ‘

The record on appeal contains no statement of facts or bills of. exception. All proceedings, appear to be regular. Nothing is presented for review.

The judgments is. affirmed.