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

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3085 Reported in Senate (RS)]

                                                       Calendar No. 589
113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3085

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 15, 2014

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security 
                        and Governmental Affairs

                           November 13, 2014

               Reported by Mr. Carper, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
   at 3349 West 111th Street in Chicago, Illinois, as the ``Captain 
            Herbert Johnson Memorial Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. CAPTAIN HERBERT JOHNSON MEMORIAL POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 3349 West 111th Street in Chicago, Illinois, shall be known 
and designated as the ``Captain Herbert Johnson Memorial Post Office 
Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Captain 
Herbert Johnson Memorial Post Office Building''.
                                                       Calendar No. 589

113th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 3085

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
   at 3349 West 111th Street in Chicago, Illinois, as the ``Captain 
            Herbert Johnson Memorial Post Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                           November 13, 2014

                       Reported without amendment
```
Exhibit 11.1

STATEMENT RE:  COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
AG-CHEM EQUIPMENT CO., INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
(DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS EXCEPT PER SHARE AMOUNTS)

The per share computation are based on the weighted average number of common
shares outstanding during the periods.

<TABLE>

                                                              Three Months Ended December 31,
                                                       -----------------------------------------------
                                                                1996                   1995
                                                                                       ----
                                                       -----------------------  ---------------------
<S>                                                           <C>                    <C>      
Shares outstanding at beginning of period                     9,695,768              9,595,768
                                                                                     
Issuance of common stock                                         ---                   100,000
                                                              ---------              ---------
                                                                                     
Shares outstanding at end of period                           9,695,768              9,695,768
                                                              =========              =========
                                                                                     
Weighted average shares outstanding                           9,695,768              9,600,164
                                                              =========              =========
                                                                                     
Net earnings                                                      $ 994                  $ 359
                                                              =========              =========
Earnings per common share                                         $0.10                  $0.04
                                                              =========              =========
</TABLE>
#### Paul Randall CAVINS, Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky, Appellee.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

'Nov. 5, 1954.

J. Ervin Sanders, P. H. Hyden, Pike-ville, for appellant.

J. D. Buckman, Jr., Atty. Gen., Wm. F. Simpson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

SIMS, Justice.

Appellant, Paul Randall Cavins, a boy 20 years of age, was convicted of robbing his uncle, Lech Cavins, of $290 and his punishment was fixed at confinement in the penitentiary for three years. He assigns three grounds for reversal of the judgment: 1. the verdict is not sustained by sufficient evidence; 2. the verdict is the result of passion and prejudice brought about by incompetent evidence; 3. improper argument by the attorney representing the Commonwealth.

The prosecuting witness, Lech Cavins, 67 years of age, testified that in February *6571953, about 3 o’clock in the morning while alone in his home, he answered a knock on his door. When he opened it appellant shined a flashlight in his eyes, grabbed him and took his wallet containing $290 from his shirt pocket. The witness was sleeping in his shirt and “slips”. It was a clear night, the moon was shining and he recog-nised his nephew and called him by name in the scuffle over the wallet. Appellant attempted to prove an alibi, testifying he spent the night of the robbery in his sister’s home. She corroborated him.

Counsel for appellant admit the evidence was sufficient to take the case to the, jury and to sustain the verdict, but argue incompetent evidence was admitted as to appellant having knowledge his father had left certain money with Lech Cavins to-keep appellant’s mother from getting.it. In the first place, this evidence was competent as bearing on the motive for the.rpb-bery. In the second place, no. objection was made to it and where no objection is made at the .time eyidence is offered, the error of its admission is waived. Wells v. Commonwealth, 313 Ky. 371, 231 S.W.2d 30; Holt v. Commonwealth, Ky., 259 S.W.2d 463.

The improper argument' complained of is, “The stories told by the defendant and his witnesses are just made up tales and if they will lie about one thing they will about another”. This argument was not improper as the attorney representing the Commonwealth certainly • may comment on the veracity of witnesses and the reasonableness of their testimony. However, if it were improper argument, we could not consider it on this appeal because it is not contained in the bill of exceptions, nor does the record show any objection by appellant to the argument. The rule is that where misconduct or improper argument by an attorney is not incorporated in the bill of exceptions, and the remarks appear only in appellant’s brief filed here, it cannot be reviewed on appeal. Cannon v. Commonwealth, 291 Ky. 517, 165 S.W.2d 44; Vontrees v. Commonwealth, 291 Ky. 583, 165 S.W.2d 145.

For the reasons given the judgment is affirmed.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1

                              LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES

<Table>
<Caption>
NAME                                                            JURISDICTION
----                                                            ------------
<S>                                                             <C>
AmerUs Life Insurance Company...............................    Iowa
Delta Life and Annuity Company..............................    Kansas
AmerUs Annuity Group Co.....................................    Kansas
American Investors Life Insurance Company, Inc. ............    Kansas
AmerUs Capital Management Group, Inc. ......................    Iowa
ILICO Holdings, Inc. .......................................    Indiana
The Indianapolis Life Group of Companies....................    Indiana
IL Annuity and Insurance Company............................    Kansas
Indianapolis Life Insurance Company.........................    Indiana
Bankers Life Insurance Company of New York..................    New York
</Table>
EXHIBIT
32.2








CERTIFICATION
OF PERIODIC FINANCIAL REPORTS







I,
Brian Chaiken, Chief Financial Officer of Z Trim Holdings, Inc., an Illinois
corporation (the "Registrant"), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:




(1)
the Report on Form 10-K for the period of the Registrant from January 1, 2008
through December 31, 2008 (the "Report") which this statement accompanies fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934; and




(2)
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.







Dated:  April
14, 2009


By                 /s/ Brian
Chaiken


Brian Chaiken


Chief Financial Officer








A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

PETER JOHN DIMITRION

, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

, Appellee.

No. 4D2023

- 2099

[ January 11, 2024 ]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.800 motion from the Circuit Court for

the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, Martin County; Hon. William L. Roby,

Judge; L.T. Case No. 431994CF001318A.

Peter John Dimitrion, Stuart, pro se.

No appearance for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed

.

G ROSS

, D AMOORGIAN and C IKLIN

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
### Gormas, Michael (OST) From: Sent: To: Subject:
Mr. Todd Homan Janice._. , Saturday, November 08, 2014 1:39 AM Gormas, Michael (OST) Essential Air Service for Tenakee Springs, Alaska
Director, Office ofAviation Analysis US Department ofTransportation 1200 NewJersey Ave. SE Washington, DC 20590 Dear Mr. Homan, ....· .

........... ·

My husband and I reside in Tenakee Springs, Alaska and have for over 20 years. One ofthe main reasons we chose Tenakee was because it has a guaranteed scheduled air service. We understood that underthe Airline Deregulation Act of 1978, that service was guaranteed bythe US Department ofTransportation and somethingthatwe could count on. It is avery important service in ourcommunity and not having it would have a huge negative affect on all ofthe community. Itwas broughtto ourattention also that the USDOT Determination 80-1-167 stipulates that ourvillage is entitled to essential air service to and from Juneau and we will suffer great hardship ifthe service taken away from us. Alaska Seaplanes has served communitywith a safe and reliable service and we hope you allowthem to continue with this absolutely essential service. Sincerely' Janice 

### & Larry Schultz Tenakee Springs, Alaska 99841

cc: The Honorable Mark Begich The Honorable Don Young The Honorable Lisa Murkowski The Honorable Don Pegues Mike Stedman 

### & Kent Crawford, Alaska Seaplanes, LLC

1
FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

Case No. 5D22-2643

LT Case No. 2021-CF-000099-A

_____________________________

ROBERT A. SCHWEICKERT, JR.,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Citrus County.

Richard A. Howard, Judge.

Robert A. Schweickert, Jr., Raiford, pro se.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Douglas T. 

Squire, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for 

Appellee.

April 12, 2024

HARRIS, J.

Appellant, Robert A. Schweickert, Jr., appeals the trial court’s 

restitution order, arguing the court did not have jurisdiction to 

hold a restitution hearing and order restitution while his appeal 

was pending. We agree, strike the restitution order and remand 

for the trial court to conduct another hearing.
2

The State charged Appellant with four counts of aggravated 

animal cruelty and twenty-three counts of cruelty to animals. 

Appellant rejected the State’s plea offer but accepted the trial 

court’s disposition of a four-year cap on incarceration in exchange 

for a no contest plea. The State noted at the plea hearing it would 

be seeking $128,090.54 in restitution. Appellant requested a 

hearing on the restitution amount. On July 12, 2022, the court 

sentenced Appellant to four years in the Department of 

Corrections on the four counts of aggravated animal cruelty and 

reserved on the restitution amount.

Appellant appealed his judgment and sentence, and on 

October 4, 2022, while his appeal was pending, the court conducted 

a restitution hearing, during which Appellant stipulated to the 

original judgment amount from his civil case ($128,090.54) as the 

amount of restitution in his criminal case. 

On appeal, Appellant argues the restitution order should be 

vacated because the trial court was without jurisdiction to conduct 

the hearing and enter the order. Once a notice of appeal has been 

filed, a trial court lacks jurisdiction to hold a restitution hearing or 

enter an order of restitution, even if it reserves jurisdiction only as 

to the amount. See Kleintank v. State, 178 So. 3d 15 (Fla. 5th DCA 

2015); Pearson v. State, 686 So. 2d 721, 721 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). 

The State properly concedes that the court lacked jurisdiction at 

the time it held the hearing and entered the restitution order. 

Accordingly, we strike the restitution order and remand for 

the trial court to conduct another restitution hearing and again 

impose restitution. See Kleintank, 178 So. 3d at 15; Smith v. State, 

39 So. 3d 471, 472 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010).

Restitution Order STRICKEN and REMANDED.

JAY and PRATT, JJ., concur.
3

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
### FI LED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT S eptember 6 , 2 005 THO MAS K. KAH N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

N o. 05- 1017 8 Non-A rgum ent Calendar
D
. C. D oc ke t N o. 04- 0000 8- CR -H L -6
UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Plaintiff-A ppellee,
ve rs us CELSO SALAZAR CASTILLO, D ef en da nt- A ppe lla nt.
Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the Mi ddl e D ist ri ct

of G eo rg ia (S ep te m be r 6, 200 5) Be fo re BL A CK , W IL SO N a nd P RY O R, Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: Rick D. Collum , a

ppoi nted couns el for C elso Salaza r Ca stillo , in this direct2

cr im ina l a

ppe al , ha s m ove d to w ith dr aw a nd f ile d a br ie f pur sua nt t o A nde rs v. Ca lif or nia , 386 U
. S. 738 , 87 S
. Ct
. 139 6, 18 L
. E d. 2d 4 93 ( 1967 ). O ur ind ep en de nt
re vie w of the e nti re r ec or d r ev ea ls t ha t c ouns el ’ s a sse ssm en t of the r el at ive m er it of the a ppe al is co rr ec t. B ec au se ind ep en de nt e xa m ina tio n of the r ec or d r ev ea ls n o iss ue s of a rg ua ble m er it, c ouns el ’ s m oti on t o w ith dr aw is G RA N T E D , a nd Cas ti ll o’s co nv ic ti on an d s en te nc e is AFFIRM ED.
Turn Rate (Degrees/Se cond) 

# l9o Degrees/sec Cru is e Speed !\!1m( 115 m/s

**~-----------~** Gro ss Takeoff Weight



### L..l1_42_4~g_ra_m_s ______ 

### ~ Approach Speed L..l1_5_m_l_s_____ __, !Hoover LaunchiRecove ry 1._1 

### O __ m_/

_ s __________ ___.



## - -== Ope ra ti o nal lnfo rrnat ion Locatio n reorgia/Metropolitan Atlanta Altitud e 

## Koo feet Di sta nce f rom linside city limits 

# u Descriptio n of Operation Used to acquire ariel videos and photos of residental and commercial properties

Operations Area (Attach VFR Chart with Coordinates) Ci ass of .L\l rs pace 

## 0 Under Mode C Veil 

# o o

**G** Flight Con d i Uons 

### Viii

**VFR** 

## 0 8 (Requires FAA HQ approval) 

# o c D ,... t:. 

## 0 G (With an operational ATC Tovver)


## Air Traffic Communication 

# u O VHF Transmitter 

## 0 Yes ® No R e ceiver Gua rd (Emergency Frequency) 

## 0 \'es ® No ® No
Februar y10,201 2 

## .;;Ci^ARrMENTO F 

# mns ^ '""I T•- ,



### - ^• ' 3 - 1 1 R E TI R E M E N T 

### Solution s

Docke t Managemen t Facilit y 120 0 Ne wJerse yAve. , SE Wes t Buildin g Groun d Floor . Rm . WI2-14 0 Washington , C D 2059 0 RE : Su n Counti ySlo t Exemptio n - Docke t #FAA-2012-008 9 Dea rSirs/Madams : Su n Countr> ' Airline s ha s requeste d a n exemptio n fro m th e slo t limi t fo rRonal d Reaga n Washingto n Nationa l Airpor t (D C A ) se t fort h i n Sec . 93.123(a) , t o pennJ t th e F AAt o creat e ai rcarrie rslot s durin g certai n limite d hour s fo rSu n Country' s use . Th e propose d ai rcarrie rslot s woul d replac e tw o slo t exemption s unde rDO TOrde r2010-12-1 6 awarde d t o Su n County . O n Januar> ' 6 , 2012 , th e U S Cour t o f Appeal s fo rth e Distric t o fColumbi a Circui t vacate d th e DO TOrde ran d Su n Countr ywil l los e it s existin g servic e betwee n DC Aan d Lansing' s Capita l Regiona l Internationa l Airport . A s a corporat e residen t o fLansing , Michigan , w e at Alerus l ca n attes t t o th e benefi t o fth e direc t fligh t fro m Lansin g t o D C provide d b ySu n Country . I t i s convenient , afTordabl e an d a grea t alternativ e t o othe r fligh t option s availabl e t o th e Michiga n base d Aleru s Retiremen t Solution s statT . Further , Su n Country' s DC Aservic e i s essentia l t o th e economi cgrowt h o fth e greate rLansin g region . Th e dail yservic e i s th e onl ylarg e aircraf t servic e t o Reaga n airpor t i n Michiga n outsid e o fDetroit . Prio rt o th e arriva l o fSu n Countr yi n Lansing , th e regiona l communit yha d requeste d servic e fro m numerou s othe rairlin e operator s withou t success . I t i s critica l th e FA Atak e th e necessar ystep s t o ensur e th e continuatio n o fth e Su n Countr yslot s at th e establishe d fligh t time s i n suppor t o feconomi cgrowt h i n th e Mid-Michiga n region . You rimmediat e approva l o fthi s exemptio n wil l enabl e Su n Countr) ' t o bein g t o schedul e flight s fo rth e balanc e o f2012 . JYpu rattentio n t o thi s matter.is.greatly.apprecialed. . 

### Sincerely . Denis e P . Schroede r Regiona l Directo r

, •

, . Alerii s Retiremen t

Sdliitioii s

.':'•'.•'• -

• •; i u

- • ' ••• ' , •' V . I.- . • r



### 800.433.158 5 alerusretirementsolutions.co m 

## Alway s i n you rbes t interest ' 214 9 Joll yRoad , Suit e 20 0 

### Okemos , M

I 4886 4
**Exhibit 23**

 

**Consentof Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

 

We consent to theincorporation by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-121716 ofTidelands Bancshares, Inc. on Form S-8, pertaining to the TidelandsBancshares, Inc. 2004 Stock Incentive Plan, of our report, dated March 16,2009, that is included in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of TidelandsBancshares, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2008.

 

 

/s/ Elliott Davis PLLC

 

**Elliott Davis, PLLC**

**Charlotte, North Carolina**

March 16, 2009

 

----
#### POWELL v. STATE.

No. 25470.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 14, 1951.

No attorney on appeal for appellant.

George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

MORRISON, Judge.

The offense is wilfully burning grass not his own, as denounced by Article 1388.b-l, Vernon’s Ann.Penal Code; the punishment, a fine of $500.

Our able State’s Attorney has confessed error herein because the indictment fails to allege the requisite elements of the offense. Nowhere in the indictment do we find the allegation that the grass in question was “on lands of which he is not in possession or control at the time of setting such fire”.

We are cited Barker v. State, 140 Tex.Cr.R. 580, 146 S.W.2d 761, involving the same offense, wherein we dismissed the prosecution because of the absence in the indictment of the allegation that the crime was committed “so as to cause loss or injury to another”.

All requisite elements of an offense denounced by the Legislature must appear in the indictment.

Because of the defect in the indictment, the judgment is reversed and the prosecution ordered dismissed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-31-1998
<CASH>                                       1,471,832
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,880,006
<ALLOWANCES>                                    32,000
<INVENTORY>                                  3,055,451
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             6,514,861
<PP&E>                                       6,155,522
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,234,263
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              10,105,980
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,888,347
<BONDS>                                      1,432,069
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           69,298
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,887,972
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                10,105,980
<SALES>                                      2,513,757
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,513,757
<CGS>                                        1,628,250
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,285,703
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (11,153)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              53,566
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                185,641
<INCOME-TAX>                                    65,997
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            119,644
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    808
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   120,452
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     .044
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     .042


</TABLE>
<Page>

                                                                    Exhibit 10.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
         ACCOMPANYING ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 20-F REPORT OF TRICOM, S.A.
              PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
              (CHAPTER 63, TITLE 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350(a) AND (b))

     Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Chapter 63,
Title 18 U.S.C. Section 1350(a) and (b)), the undersigned hereby certifies that
the Annual Report on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2002 of
TRICOM, S.A. (the "Company") fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the
information contained in such Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


                                          /s/ MANUEL ARTURO PELLERANO PENA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated: May 22, 2003                       Manuel Arturo Pellerano Pena
                                          President, Chief Executive Officer
                                          and Chairman of the Board of Directors