alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Grapevine-Colleyville ISO 

220906 

BOARD MEETINGS BED 

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION (LOCAL) 

LIMIT ON Audience participation at a Board meeting is limited to the public 

PARTICIPATION comment portion of the meeting designated for that purpose. At all 

other times during a Board meeting, the audience shall not enter 

into discussion or debate on matters being considered by the 

Board, unless requested by the presiding officer. 

PUBLIC COMMENT. At regular meetings the Board shall allot 30 minutes to hear persons who desire to make comments to the Board. Persons who 

wish to participate in this portion of the meeting shall sign up with 

the· presiding officer or designee before the meeting begins and 

shall Indicate the topic about which they wish to speak. 

BOARD'S 

RESPONSE 

COMPLAINTS AND 

CONCERNS 

DISRUPTION 

No presentation sha.11 exceed five minutes. Delegations of more 

than five persons shall appoint one person to present their views 

before the Board. 

Specific factual information or recitation of existing policy may be 

furnished in response to inquiries, but the Board shall not deliberate or decide regarding any subject that is not included on the 

agenda.posted with notice of the meeting. 

The presiding officer or designee shall determine whether a person 

addressing the Board has attempted to solve a matter administratively through resolution channels established by policy. If riot, the 

person shall be referred to the appropriate policy (see list below) to 

seek resolution: 

Employee complaints: DGBA 

Student or parent complaints: FNG 

Public complaints: GF 

The Board shall not tolerate disruption of the meeting by members 

of the audience. If, after at least one warning from the presiding 

officer, any person continues to disrupt the meeting by his or her 

words or actions, the presiding officer may request assistance from 

law enforcement officials to have the. person removed from the 

meeting. 

DATE ISSUED: 8/26/2008 

LOU 2008.03 

BED(LOCAL)-A DE ENDANT'S ~ EXHIBIT 

ADOPTED: 1 of 1 

!l.0OPTED ON: __ 7_·_J-_\o_· fzs_' --

I A----2:- ~~. '/J-~ vD W\ 

Case 4:21-cv-01075-P Document 13-3 Filed 09/23/21 Page 1 of 1 PageID 68
Rhinelander Area Chamber of Commerce 

450 W. Kemp St, PO Box 795 

Rhinelander, WI 54501 

www.rhinelanderchamber.com 

August 2, 2012 

U.S. Department ofTransportation 

Office of Aviation Analysis 

Essential Air Service Division 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

Attn: Mr. Dennis J. DeVany, Chief Essential Air Service Division 

RE: Docket OST-2011-0109 Rhinelander, Wisconsin 

Dear Mr. DeVany, 

oor-osl-2.tHl- orot:t 

0 : Or? ' ... 

On behalf of the Rhinelander Area Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors, I would like to thank you 

for allowing the Rhinelander/Oneida County Airport to once again solicit' bids f.or essential air service 

into the Rhinelander area. While we appreciate the interest of all three airlines, Great Lakes Airline, 

SkyWest Airlines and Sovereign Air Inc., I would ask you support the proposal submitted by SkyWest 

Airlines. 

The proposal by SkyWest Airlines offers the best solution for the Rhinelander/Oneida County Airport 

and the best opportunities for our passengers. Many of the customers using the Rhinelander/Oneida 

County Airport are currently Delta Frequent Flyers that have chosen to use other airports because of 

their loyalty to Delta. SkyWest would allow these passengers to return to their local airport. In addition, 

SkyWest would be offering the best flight options to meet a majority of passengers needs. 

Reliable air transportation to major airline hubs provides the advantage that our local businesses and 

manufacturers need to stay competitive in today's market place. This service will also provide a great 

boost to the tourism industry, which is critical to the economies of the Northwoods of Wisconsin and 

the U.P. of Michigan, serviced by the Rhinelander/Oneida County Airport. SkyWest will be providing an 

essential service to the Rhinelander business community. As a Delta Connection they will offer a reliable 

service with a proven national reputation. 

I urge you to support the proposal from SkyWest Airlines to provide essential air services to the 

Rhinelao.di~[/Oneida CountyAirport. 

SincLiy, ··... /7 

!'/ ili/J) ih~'----~ \,--{d./ [!AJt y/· . i 9./ 

L4ra Reed Exec~tive Dir ctor 

R~inelan er Area Char.rfuer of Commerce 

. I 

\) 

Hhinelander Area Chamber of Commerce * 4~)0 Ill/est i<'"mp Street, Post Office Box 795 • Rhinelander, WI 54501 

(715) 365-7464 • (800) 236-4FUN * www.RhinelanderCharnber.com
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AMARILLO DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA §

§

 Plaintiff, §

§

v. § 2:22-CR-43-Z-BR-(2)

§

CANDICE SIMONE ROGERS §

§

 Defendant. §

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

CONCERNING PLEA OF GUILTY

On September 16, 2022, the United States Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation 

Concerning Plea of Guilty (“Report and Recommendation”) in the above referenced cause. Defendant 

Candice Simone Rogers filed no objections to the Report and Recommendation within the fourteen-day 

period set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Court independently examined all relevant matters of record 

in the above referenced cause—including the elements of the offense, Factual Resume, Plea Agreement, 

and Plea Agreement Supplement—and thereby determined that the Report and Recommendation is correct. 

Therefore, the Report and Recommendation is hereby ADOPTED by the United States District Court. 

Accordingly, the Court hereby FINDS that the guilty plea of Defendant Candice Simone Rogers was 

knowingly and voluntarily entered; ACCEPTS the guilty plea of Defendant Candice Simone Rogers; and 

ADJUDGES Defendant Candice Simone Rogers guilty of Count One of the Superseding Information in 

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 and Count Two of the Superseding Information in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 

843(b). Sentence will be imposed in accordance with the Court’s sentencing scheduling order.

SO ORDERED, October 5, 2022.

_______________________________

MATTHEW J. KACSMARYK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:22-cr-00043-Z-BR Document 62 Filed 10/05/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 210
Case 1:22-cr-00020-H-BU Document 25 Filed 04/26/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 45
Case 1:22-cr-00020-H-BU Document 25 Filed 04/26/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 46
Vendor Outreach Sessions (VOS) are a series of pre-arranged 15-minute appointments 

with Small Business Specialists, Program Managers and Treasury’s Prime Contractors. 

VOS gives small businesses an opportunity to market their products and services to 

Treasury and provides small businesses with comprehensive information regarding 

contracting opportunities. Please bring your company’s Capabilities Statements related 

to your product and services. Visit the TIPS link to learn how to make your attendance a 

success.

THIS EVENT IS FREE

Cancellation Policy: If VOS is canceled, you will notified via email

Dates Registration Opens Type of VOS

January 22, 2020 January 2, 2020 All Small Businesses

March 25, 2020 March 4, 2020 WOSB/EDWOSB

August 12, 2020

 Virtual Event By invitation ONLY! HUBZone/SDVOSB

SCHEDULE

VENDOR OUTREACH SESSIONS SCHEDULE

IMPORTANT UPDATE!!

DUE TO THE PANDEMIC, THE AUGUST 12, 2020 VOS WILL BE VIRTUAL

IF YOU ARE REGISTERED IN TREASURY'S SMALL BUSINESS VENDOR DATABASE, ALL QUALIFIED HZ 

AND SDVOSB VENDORS WILL RECEIVE AN INVITATION. FIRST COME - FIRST SERVE

MAXIMUM PARTICIPANTS -150

THERE WILL BE NO ONE-ON-ONE MATCH-MAKING

SUBJECT MATTER EXPERTS WILL DISCUSS PROGRAM UPDATES FROM 10:00AM - 11:30AM

Special Note: FY 21 registration information is forthcoming!!
imc_ex103.htm

EXHIBIT 10.3
   
  The Company has agreed for repayment of loans made to the Company by Dr. Robert Zayas, as follows: 
   
  All loans shall be due and payable on December 31, 2015 and shall bear no interest.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA §

§

v. § CASE NO.: 3:22-CR-339-X

§

OBADIAH FRASER (1) §

ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE CONCERNING PLEA OF GUILTY

After reviewing all relevant matters of record, including the Notice Regarding Entry of a Plea of Guilty, 

the Consent of the defendant, and the Report and Recommendation Concerning Plea of Guilty of the United 

States Magistrate Judge, and no objections thereto having been filed within fourteen days of service in 

accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the undersigned District Judge is of the opinion that the Report and 

Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge concerning the Plea of Guilty is correct, and it is hereby accepted by 

the Court. Accordingly, the Court accepts the plea of guilty, and OBADIAH FRASER (1) is hereby adjudged 

guilty of 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a) – Production of Child Pornography. Sentence will be imposed in accordance with 

the Court's scheduling order.

⌧ The defendant is ordered to remain in custody.

☐ The Court adopts the findings of the United States Magistrate Judge by clear and convincing evidence 

that the defendant is not likely to flee or pose a danger to any other person or the community if 

released and should therefore be released under § 3142(b) or (c).

☐ Upon motion, this matter shall be set for hearing before the United States Magistrate Judge who set 

the conditions of release for determination, by clear and convincing evidence, of whether the 

defendant is likely to flee or pose a danger to any other person or the community if released under § 

3142(b) or (c).

☐ The defendant is not ordered detained pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3143(a)(2) pending determination of 

whether it has been clearly shown that there are exceptional circumstances under § 3145(c) why the 

defendant should not be detained under § 3143(a)(2), and whether it has been shown by clear and 

convincing evidence that the defendant is not likely to flee or pose a danger to any other person or the 

community if released under § 3142(b) or (c). This matter shall be referred to the United States 

Magistrate Judge who set the conditions of release.

Signed this 5th day of June, 2023.

________________________________

BRANTLEY STARR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 3:22-cr-00339-X Document 33 Filed 06/05/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID 53
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 229 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. J. RES. 229

       Establishing July 13, 1993, as ``Cost of Government Day''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 13, 1993

   Mr. DeLay (for himself, Mr. Archer, Mr. Baker of California, Mr. 
    Ballenger, Mr. Bartlett of Maryland, Mr. Burton of Indiana, Mr. 
 Calvert, Mr. Collins of Georgia, Mr. Gingrich, Mr. Hefley, Ms. Dunn, 
 Mr. Everett, Mr. Linder, Mr. Kim, Mr. Herger, Mr. Thomas of Wyoming, 
  Mr. Horn, Mr. Goodlatte, Ms. Pryce of Ohio, Mr. Hoke, Mr. Smith of 
   Texas, Mr. Franks of New Jersey, and Mr. Goodling) introduced the 
     following joint resolution; which was referred jointly to the 
 Committees on Government Operations and Post Office and Civil Service

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
       Establishing July 13, 1993, as ``Cost of Government Day''.

Whereas the cost of Government has increased from 48.48 percent of net national 
        product (NNP) in 1989 to an estimated 53.10 percent of NNP in 1993;
Whereas the total cost of Government now approaches $3,000,000,000,000;
Whereas Federal regulatory costs now exceed $600,000,000,000 annually;
Whereas the cost of Government in general and regulations in particular have 
        placed a tremendous drain on the economy in recent years by reducing 
        worker productivity, increasing prices to consumers, and increasing 
        unemployment; and
Whereas the average American worker does not earn enough money to pay off all 
        his or her Government-imposed financial obligations (Government spending 
        and the cost of regulations) until July 13, 1993: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That we, the United States Congress, do hereby recognize 
July 13, 1993, as Cost of Government Day and encourage all Federal, 
State, and local elected officials to carefully consider the costs of 
Government spending and regulatory schemes in the year to come.

                                 <all>
```
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.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

          - [Docket No. RP00-592-001]

Take notice that on November 6, 2000, Wyoming Interstate Company, Ltd. (WIC), tendered for filing to become part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 2, Substitute Third Revised Sheet No. 61 to be effective retroactively on September 29, 2000.

WIC states that pursuant to FERC Commission Order, dated October 26, 2000, in Docket No. RP00-592-000, this compliance filing is being made to remove incremental rate tariff language from WIC's Right of First Refusal, Section 5.1 of its General Terms and Conditions. 

WIC further states that copies of this filing have been served on WIC's jurisdictional customers and public bodies. 

Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed in accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/​online/​rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance). 

Comments and protests may be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site at http://www.ferc.fed.us/​efi/​doorbell.htm.

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00-29586 Filed 11-17-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations 

West Building Ground Floor, Room w12-140 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

Washington, DC 20590 

Application to Amend 

Section 333 Exemption No. 13631 

Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2015-3727 

9Dec2015 

Petitioner: 

Vanasse Hangen Brustlin 

Greg Bosworth, Vice President of Information Technology 

101 Walnut Street 

Watertown, MA 02472 

Greetings, 

By letter from the FAA dated Nov 17, 2015, an exemption was granted to Vanasse Hangen Brustlin for 

relief under Section 333. That letter was marked Section 333 Exemption No. 13631 Regulatory Docket No. 

FAA-2015-3727. 

 

Vanasse Hangen Brustlin hereby requests that the exemption so granted be amended to include DJI 

Phantom 3 models. Relevant facts and reasoning are: 

 Size, weight and performance specification of the DJI Phantom 3 (“P3”) are similar to those of the 

DJI Phantom 2 (“P2”) in all relevant respects: 

 Gross weight: P3=1280g; P2=1242g. 

 Diagonal Size (including propellers): P3=590mm; P2=579mm. 

 Maximum Ascent Speed: P3=5m/sec; P2=6m/sec. 

 Maximum Descent Speed: P3=3m/sec; P2=2m/sec. 

 Vertical Hover Accuracy: P3=+/-10cm; P2=+/-80cm. 

 Horizontal Hover Accuracy: P3=+/-1m; P2=+/-2.5m. 

 Maximum Speed: P3=16m/sec; P2=15m/sec. 

 The findings, rationale and conclusions contained in the FAA’s Exemption No. 13631 apply 

without modification to this application to include the DJI Phantom 3 model in Exemption No. 

13631. 

 All safety procedures and protocols in place for the DJI Phantom 2 will be in place for the 

Phantom 3 models 

Thank you for your consideration of this important request. Please advise us of any additional 

information that is required. 

Sincerely, 

Greg Bosworth 

Vice President of Information Technology, Vanasse Hangen Brustlin
`[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 425 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.J.Res.425

                       One Hundred Third Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America


                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
 the twenty-fifth day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-
                                  four


                            Joint Resolution

  
 
  Providing for the convening of the First Session of the One Hundred 
Fourth Congress.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That the first regular session 
of the One Hundred Fourth Congress shall begin at noon on Wednesday, 
January 4, 1995.







                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.







                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.`
## United States Court of App eals
F O R T H E E I G H T H C I R C U I T

__ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 1- 27 90

__ __ __ __ __ _ Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca, *
* App el le e, *
* App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s v. * Dis tri ctCo ur t fo r th e * W es te rn Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s. Pau l T. Odo m , *
* [UNPUBLISHED] App el la nt

. *

__ __ __ __ __ _ Su bm it te d: Feb ru ary 9, 2 01 2 Fi le d: Feb ru ary 15 , 20 12

__ __ __ __ __ _ Befo re MUR PHY, ARNOLD, an d S HEPHERD, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ _ PER CURI AM.

Pau l Odo m pl ead ed gu il ty to dru g - t r a f f i c ki ng an d fir earm ch arg es
. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 92 4( c)(1 )(A) an d 2; 21 U.S.C. §§ 84 1( a)(1 ), (b )(1 )(A)(v ii i) an d 84 6. Afte r fin di ng th at he was a care er of fen de r, th e di st ric t co ur t se nt en ced hi m to 26 0 m on th s 1 in pr is on
. On ap pe al , hi s co un se l ha s m ov ed to wit hd raw an d f i l e d a b r i e f un de r A nd ers v. Cal ifo rn ia , 38 6 U.S. 73 8 (1 96 7) , as se rti ng th at Odo m ’s care er- o f f e n d e r st atus ov ers ta te d t h e se rio us ne ss of hi s cri m in al hi st or y , whi ch co ns is te d of on ly

The Hon or ab le Ro be r t T. Dawso n, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e 1 W es te rn Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s.no nv io le nt cri m es rel at edto hi s m et ha m ph et am in e ad di ct io n, an d t hu s t he se nt en ce
was un reas on ab le

.
W e co nc lu de th e d is tri ct co ur t d id no t i m po se an un reas on ab le sen te nc e: th e
co ur t co m

m it te d no si gn ifi can t pr oc ed ur al er r o r i n se nt en ci ng Odo m , se e Uni te d St at es v. Feem st er, 57 2 F.3 d 45 5, 46 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (en ba nc ) ( d e s c r i b i ng pr oc ed ur al erro r); an d th e se nt en ce-- a 62

- mo n t h do wnwar d va ria nc e fro m th e Gui de li ne s ran ge --was su bs ta nt iv el y reas on ab le , se e Uni te d St at es v. Aug us ti ne , 66 3 F.3 d 36 7, 37 4- 75 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ) (n o ab us e of di sc ret io n whe re di st ric t co ur t gr an te d

sm al le r do wnwar d var ia nc e th an req ue st ed by de fen da nt , bu t con si de red arg um en ts in su pp or t of great er do wnwar d var ia nc e whe n m ak in g sen te nc in g det erm in at io n)

.

Hav in g rev ie wed th e reco rd in de pe nd en tl y un de r Pen so n v. Ohi o, 48 8 U.S. 75 (1 98 8) , we fin d no no nf

riv ol ou s is su e. Acco rd in gl y , we gr an t co un se l’s m ot io n to wit hd raw, an d we a ffi rm
.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-2

-
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                               AS ADOPTED PURSUANT
                TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Smithway Motor Xpress Corp. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2004, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, G.
Larry Owens, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

      (1)   The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
            15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

                                                /s/ G. Larry Owens
                                                --------------------------------
                                                G. Larry Owens
                                                Chief Executive Officer
                                                November 12, 2004
IA

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. J. RES. 345

Disapproving the action of the District of Columbia Council in approving

the Displaced Workers Protection Act of 1994.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 24, 1994

Mr. BALLENGER (for himself, Mr. BLILEY, Mr. ROHRABACHER, and Mr.

SAXTON) introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to

the Committee on the District of Columbia

JOINT RESOLUTION

Disapproving the action of the District of Columbia Council

in approving the Displaced Workers Protection Act of 1994.

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That the Congress hereby disapproves of the action of the

4 District of Columbia Council described as follows: The

5 Displaced Workers Protection Act of 1994 (D.C. Act 10-

6 193), approved by the District of Columbia Council on

7 February 17, 1994, and transmitted to Congress pursuant

8 to section 602(c) of the District of Columbia Self-
2

•HJ 345 IH

1 Government and Governmental Reorganization Act on

2 March 7, 1994.

Æ
Case 2:22-cr-00089-Z-BR Document 74 Filed 10/21/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 170