alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### SERVED: April27, 2016 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS WASHINGTON, DC

In The Matter Of: ) ) DocketNo. F AA-2016-4262 UNITED PARCEL SERVICE COMPANY ) ) Case No. 2012S0700099 Respondent )
ORDERDISMISSING PROCEEDING OnAprilS, 2016, an Order Granting the Respondent's Motion for Extension ofTime and Directing/Reserving Other Reliefwas filed was filed. On April6, 2016, an Erratum Order was filed correcting the docket number appearing in the AprilS, 2016 Order. On April18, 2016, the FAA filed the Complainant's Joint Response to Respondent's Motionto Consolidate Proceedings and Request for Alternate Hearing Venue and the Court's April 5, 2016 Order ("Response"). OnApril 26, 2016, the FAA filed its Withdrawal ofComplaint. 1 After havingreviewed the case file, all pleadings and motions, all relevant caselaw, statutes, regulations, rules, and authority, and being fully advised; IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. All pending motions and otherrequests for reliefare deemed moot. 2. Pursuant to 14 C.P.R.§ 13.215, the FAA has withdrawn its Complaint, and this proceeding is dismissed withprejudice.

Attachment: Service List

1The FAA's Complaint identifies the Respondent as "UnitedParcel Service Company." In its Withdrawal of Complaint, the FAA erroneously identifies the Respondent as "UnitedParcel Service, Inc." Althoughthe FAA made an inferredrequest for a change ofparty identity in its April18, 2016 Response, suchrequest has notbeenruled upon. Thus, the identity ofthe Respondent inthis proceeding continues to be the respondent identity originally plead: "UnitedParcel Service Company."DocketNo. FAA-2016-4262 (Civil Penalty Action) 

### SERVICE LIST- BY U.S. MAIL ORIGINAL & ONE COPY Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W10001 ONE COPY

Ms. AndreaMichelle Harper Complainant's Counsel Federal Aviation Administration Enforcement Division, Southern Team 1701 ColumbiaAvenue College Park, GA 30337 TEL: 404-305-5200 FAX: 404-305-5223
Mr. Paul Alp Respondent's Counsel Crowell & Moring LLP 1001 PennsylvaniaAvenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20004 TEL: 202-624-2500 FAX: 202-628-5116
Judge J.E. Sullivan US. Administrative Law Judge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200NewJersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) Washington, DC 20590 TEL: 202-366-6941 FAX: 202-366-7536 

### Mr. Winston E. Miller Respondent's Counsel Frost, Brown, Todd, LLC 400 Market Street, 32nd Floor· Louisville, KY 40202-3363 TEL: 502-589-0296 FPCK: 502-581-1087

Ms. Meaghan G. Byrd Respondent's Counsel Alston & Byrd LLP One Atlantic Center 1201 W. Peachtree Street Atlanta, GA 30309-3424 TEL: 404-881-7245 FPCK: 404-253-8510

1 Service was byU.S. Mail. For service in person orby expedited courier, use the following address: Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl000, Washington, DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.
Case 2:22-cv-00094-Z Document 80 Filed 09/20/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 829
The Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr., United States District Judge for th e 1 Eastern District of Arkansas.



## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 97-3413

___________ Stetson Geiger; Marilyn Geiger, * * Appellants, * * v. * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the City of Oppelo; Herschell Payne; * Eastern District of Arkansas. Jeannie Andrews, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: September 18, 1998 Filed: September 23, 1998

___________ Befo reMcMILLIAN, RICHARD S. ARNOLD, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Stetson and Marilyn Geiger, husband and wife, appeal from district court & s entry 1 of summary judgment in favor of the City of Oppelo, Arkansas, and its mayor and city clerk/recorder, in this action raising claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, and 1986, and also under state law. Upon a thorough review of the record and the parties &-2-

subm issions on appeal, we affirm the judgment in favor of defendants on the federal claims. We construe the court & s order to have dismissed the state claims withou t prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, and affirm that ruling as well. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(d) (tolling period of limitations for state law claims while claims are pending and for 30 days after dismissal or longer period if provided by state law). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This Schedule Contians Summary Financial Information Extracted From The
Company's condensed consolidated balance sheets and condensed consolidated
statements of operations filed with Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 1998, and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000939730
<NAME>                        Expert Software, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
<CURRENCY>                                     US Dollars
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-Mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 APR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1.00
<CASH>                                         4,819
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  9,406
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (3,497)
<INVENTORY>                                    2,680
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               15,405
<PP&E>                                         3,969
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (2,965)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 19,885
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          6,971
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       76
<OTHER-SE>                                     12,838
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   19,885
<SALES>                                        7,854
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               7,854
<CGS>                                          3,515
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  8,440
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               51
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (524)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (194)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (330)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (330)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.04)
        


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-7095

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

MARCUS DUKE SHELTON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge.

(CR-90-208-R, CA-97-287-R)

Submitted: October 20, 1998 Decided: November 19, 1998

Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Marcus Duke Shelton, Appellant Pro Se. Julie C. Dudley, Assistant

United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying

his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998).

We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district

court. United States v. Shelton, Nos. CR-90-208-R; CA-97-287-R

(W.D. Va. July 6, 1998). We dispense with oral argument because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

DISMISSED
&,_5%!_7,&5!_455!4_&452&5_.725_#.2_5%!_

,.25%!2,_&452&5_.#_5!84

#57.25%_&:&4&.,

] &,_5%!_)745&!_.85

]

]_

]_

]_

]_

]_

]_ "55

]_

] "
"5&%5"+

OB.R45OB5OBERTo

2,134105

'5

'!5#5!9!#!5


!!
#55!!
5

#5
##
#!5*&

+5+5
!

./.3-,34S

]


	)"55&5(55!&"55
#!


5##5
5#5#5'

#

"$/3"_+"_WG@_XO?@TVHFO@?_<XWGPTHW\_ PO_WGHV_?<\_R@TVPO<LL\_<RR@<T@?_"XF@OHP_

9<TFXV_ZGP_=@HOF_=\_N@_DJTVW_?XL\_VZPTO_?H?_VW<W@_


 '_<N_@NRLP\@?_<V_<_$LHFGW_WW@O?<OW_ZPTKHOF_ZHWG_N@TH><O_HTLHO@V

'O>_ <O?_ '_ V@TY@?_ <V_ WG@_ -<WHPO<L_ 6T@<VXT@T_ DQT_ WG@_ VVP>H<WHPO_ PB



0TPDAVVHPO<L_$LHFGW_WW@O?<OWV_0$_DUPN_RTHL__ _ WP_(XL\_


_ '_G<Y@_R@TVPO<L_KOPZL@?F@_PB_WG@_E>W	_'_<N__\@<TV_PT_PL?@T_<O?

PB_VPXO?_NHO?_WP_N<K@_WG@V@_VW<W@N@OWV

< XTHOF_N\_<?NHOHVWT<WHPO_PC_N\_?XWH@V_<V_-<WHPO<M_6T@<VXT@T_HW_Z<V

N\_ T@VRPOVH=HLHW\_ WP_ T@YH@Z_ <LL_ HO>PNHOF_ >G<TF@V_ @[R@OV@V_ <O?

T@>@HRWV_PC_WG@_0$_-<WIPO<L_0T@VH?@OW_ 'W_Z<V_N\_T@VRPOVH=HLHW\_WP

T<HV@_ <O\_ >PO>@TO_ <O?_ DQTZ<T?_ <O\_ >G<TF@_ PT_ T@>@HRW_ZHWG_ZGH>G_ '

SX@VWHPO@?_ <V_ WP_ ZG@WG@T_ HW_ Z<V_ <_ Y<LH?_ =XVHO@VV
T@M<W@?_ @[R@OV@



Case 4:22-cv-00333-P Document 3-16 Filed 04/19/22 Page 1 of 3 PageID 665
Exhibit C 2 of 2

back to the individual for a more detailed explanation prior to 

granting approval or denial. 

b. At that time I served with Robert “Bob” Ross (“Ross”) as the National 

President of APFA. Any charges made by Ross, that I questioned 

were cleared and all questions rectified. Any of Ross’s union credit 

card charges, expenses and receipts that I reviewed and approved 

were in compliance with APFA policy at the time of approval. 

c. Charges made by Robert “Bob” Ross never gave rise to any suspicion 

of theft, misappropriation, or breach of his fiduciary duty, or conduct 

unbecoming an APFA officer whatsoever. 

d. On or about May 25, 2018, I had a conversation with Robert (Bob) 

Ross regarding any outstanding charges that should be repaid to 

APFA. I informed him the charges made for his furniture for the 

APFA apartment should be repaid. He authorized me to contact 

APFA payroll and have the expenses of $3637.92 - $331.28 (deduction 

for returned furniture) deducted from his payroll, which I sent an 

email to payroll to have these funds deducted. 

FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NOT.

_______________________________

Eugenio Vargus

Eugenio Vargas who produced Texas drivers license as 

identification 

Case 4:22-cv-00333-P Document 3-16 Filed 04/19/22 Page 2 of 3 PageID 666
Exhibit C 3 of 2

SWORN AND SUBSCRIBED TO before me on this _____ day of April, 2022.

________________________________

Notary Public, State of Texas

17th 

Remote Online Notary Public 

State of Texas, Jefferson County 

KBA online using audio video communication 

Case 4:22-cv-00333-P Document 3-16 Filed 04/19/22 Page 3 of 3 PageID 667
1

Nesky, Anthony

From: Dawn Kolkman <dkolkman@uranerz.com>

Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2015 3:42 PM

To: Nesky, Anthony

Cc: Mike Thomas

Subject: Public Hearing for 40 CFR 192

Tony,

I received your notification of the public hearing in D.C.; however, given the distance I would request a public hearing in

Wyoming.  Casper Wyoming is a central location to the majority of ISR operations that are the focus of the proposed

rulemaking and it would be prudent and practical for EPA to hold a hearing here.   

Thank You

Dawn Kolkman 

Permitting Manager

Uranerz Energy Corporation

1701 East “E” Street

PO Box 50850

Casper, WY 82605‐0850 USA

T: 307‐289‐8900 | F: 307‐265‐8904 | E: dkolkman@uranerz.com

This electronic coummunication, and any attachments, may contain information which is confidential and/or privileged.  If you are not the intended

recipient, you are hereby notified that any distribution, copying or reliance upon the contents of this coummunication is strictly prohibited.  If you

have received this coummunication in error, please notify the sender immediately and kindly delete this message.  Thank you for your cooperation.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

TRACY OCHE, individually )

and on behalf of all others similarly situated,)

)

Plaintiff, ) Case No. 3:22-cv-834-X

)

v. )

)

NATIONAL MATH AND SCIENCE )

INITIATIVE, )

)

Defendant. )

)

NOTICE OF DISMISSAL

Plaintiff Tracy Oche (“Plaintiff”) hereby gives notice that this action is dismissed pursuant 

to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i).

Dated: September 16, 2022 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Gary M. Klinger

Gary M. Klinger (admitted pro hac vice)

MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON 

 PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC

227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 

Chicago, IL 60606

Phone: (847) 208-4585

gklinger@milberg.com

JOE KENDALL 

Texas Bar No. 11260700 

KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC 

3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 1450 

Dallas, Texas 75219 

214-744-3000 / 214-744-3015 (Facsimile) 

jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com

Daniel O. Herrera (admitted pro hac vice)

CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER &

SPRENGEL LLP

135 S. LaSalle, Suite 3210

Chicago, Illinois 60603

Case 3:22-cv-00834-X Document 23 Filed 09/16/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 98
Telephone: (312) 782-4880

Facsimile: (312) 782-4485

dherrera@caffertyclobes.com

Counsel for Plaintiff

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this 16th day of September, 2022, I caused the foregoing document 

to be filed with the Clerk of this Court via the Court’s CM/ECF system, which will cause a true 

and correct copy to be served electronically on all counsel of record.

/s/ Gary M. Klinger

Gary M. Klinger

Case 3:22-cv-00834-X Document 23 Filed 09/16/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 99
# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 13

- 897 V

Filed : October 29 , 2014

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

L AURA J. LEBEL, * UNPUBLISHED

*

Petitioner, * Special Master Hamilton

- Fieldman

*

v. *

* Decisi on on Attorneys’ Fees and Costs;

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND * Reasonable Amount Requested to

HUMAN SERVICES, * which Respondent Does Not Object.

*

Respondent. *

. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Paul M. Ianna ccone

, RisCassi & Davis, P.C., Hartford, CT , for Petitioner.

Gordon Shemin

, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for R espondent

.

DECISION 1 (ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS)

In this case under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 2 the undersigned

issued a decision awarding compensation on September 19 , 2014 . On October 28 , 2014

, the

parties filed a Stipulation for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs. This stipulation reques ts that the

undersigned a pprove an award of $ 24, 536.28 in total attorney s’ fees and costs

. Pursuant to

General Order #9, the stipulation reflects that Petitioner personally incurred no costs in pursuit of

h er claim.

The undersigned find s that this petition was brought in good faith and that there existed a

reasonable basis for the claim. Therefore, an award for fees and costs is appropriate, pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 30 0aa

- 15(b) and (e)(1). Further, the proposed amount seems reasonable and

1 The undersigned intends to post this unpublished decision on the United States Court of

Federal Claims’ website, in accordance with the E

- Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107

- 347, § 205, 116 Stat. 2899, 2913 (codified as amended at 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2006)). As

provided by Vaccine Rule 18(b), ea ch party has 14 days within which to request redaction “of

any information furnished by that party (1) that is trade secret or commercial or financial

information and is privileged or confidential, or (2) that are medical files and similar files the

disclo sure of which would constitute a clearly unw arranted invasion of privacy.” Otherwise, “the

entire” decision will be available to the public. Id.

2 The applicable statutory provisions defining the program are found at 42 U.S.C.

§ 300aa

- 10 et seq . (2006).

1appropriate. Accordingly, the undersigned hereby award s the amount of $24, 536

. 28 , in the

form of a check made payable jointly to Petitioner and Petitioner’s couns el, P aul

Iannac c one , of the law firm of RisCassi & Davis, P.C.

In the absence of a timely

- filed motion for review filed pursuant to Appendix B of the

Rules of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, the clerk of the court shall enter judgment in

accordance herewith.

IT IS SO ORDERED

.

s/ Lisa D. Hamilton

- Fieldman

Lisa D. Hamilton

- Fieldman

Special Master

2
May 22, 2014

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

LEANDREW SMITH, Appellant

NO. 14-13-00716-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

________________________________

This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. 

Having considered the record, this Court holds that there was no error in the 

judgment. The Court orders the judgment AFFIRMED.

We further order appellant pay all costs expended in the appeal.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### National Science Foundation

In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following meeting:

*Name:*                         Special Emphasis Panel in Computing—Communications Research (1192).                    

*Date/Time:*                         November 16-17, 2000; 8 a.m.-5 p.m.                    

*Place:*                         National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA.                    

*Type of Meeting:*                         Closed.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Roger Ziemer, Communications Research Panel, CISE/CCR, Room 1145, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, Virginia 22230. (703) 292-8918.                    

*Purpose of Meeting:*                         To provide advice and recommendations concerning proposals submitted to NSF for financial support.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate COM CAREER proposals as a part of the selection process for awards.                    

*Reason for Closing:*                         The proposals being reviewed include information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including technical information, financial data, such as salaries, and personal information                               ( print page 67416)                            concerning individuals associated with the proposals. These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), (4) and (6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act.                    

Dated: November 6, 2000.

Karen J. York,

Committee Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 00-28789 Filed 11-8-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
Concerning TS-DL12-Y4 - Section 2 of the SDS: 

Sanitized
#### CINCINNATI, NEWPORT & COVINGTON RY. CO. v. ROTHE.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

*Oct.*24, 1952.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 12, 1952.

*669Arthur J. Daly, Covington, for appellant.

Ebert, Cook & Burke, Newport, for ap-pellee.

CLAY, Commissioner.

Appellee was injured when one of appellant’s busses, on which she was riding in Cincinnati, stopped abruptly and hurled her against a metal bar. At the trial appellant introduced no evidence, and the jury awarded appellee $7,500 damages.

Appellant first contends that ap-pellee failed to plead the Ohio law. We are unable to comprehend how this failure affects the merits of the controversy. The point is raised here for the first time. It was not set forth as a ground in the motion for a new trial. The case was practiced and submitted to the jury on the issue of common-law negligence. No objection is raised to the instructions. Since appellee was not bound to rely on the Ohio law (and appellant’s duties under either the Ohio, Kentucky, or common law were substantially the same), there was no prejudicial error in this phase of the proceeding.

Appellant next contends that it was entitled to a directed verdict because appellee failed to prove “culpable” negligence. The argument is that even though admittedly the !bus stopped suddenly and violently, the plaintiff failed to' prove by direct evidence' that such stop was unnecessary. The accepted rule'is that where the plaintiff in this.type of case proves a sudden, violent stop, sufficient to cause injury, the jury has the 'right to infer that it was both unusual and unnecessary.' See Kentucky & T. Ry. Co. v. Ball, 175 Ky. 630, 194 S.W. 785; Millers Creek R. Co. v. Blevins,.181 Ky. 800, 2Q5 S.W. 911; Lyons v. Southeastern Greyhound Lines, 282 Ky. 106, 137 S.W.2d 1107; Cleveland Railway Co. v. Hunt, 116.Ohio St. 291, 156 N.E. 133. As pointed out in these cases, since the carrier is under a duty to exercise the highest degree of care, the burden is upon it and not the plaintiff to explain why such unusual operation was necessary. As shown in the present case, the plaintiff was not in a position to know what occasioned the bus driver to stop suddenly. Without explanation, the jury could reasonably infer that it was unnecessary. Appellant was not entitled to a directed verdict.

Lastly appellant contends that the verdict of $7,500 was excessive. Appellee was 68 years of age. She earned $25 to $30 a week as a housecleaner. In the accident, while no bones were broken, her left arm, elbow and her left foot and ankle were badly bruised. Her medical expenses were $410. Competent physicians testified that she had suffered a permanent injury to the ulnar nerve of her left arm. It resulted in a partial paralysis, and there was ample evidence this would substantially interfere with the performance of her customary physical labors. Considering the pain and suffering, the permanent nature of the injury, and the loss of earning power, this verdict is not excessive.

The judgment is affirmed.