alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

TIMOTHY A. REESE, IN HIS OFFICIAL 

CAPACITY AS THE TREASURER OF 

THE COMMONWEALTH OF 

PENNSYLVANIA

v.

PENNSYLVANIANS FOR UNION 

REFORM AND SIMON CAMPBELL, 

PRESIDENT, GOVERNOR'S OFFICE OF 

ADMINISTRATION 

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, 

COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL 

EMPLOYEES, COUNCIL 13, AFL-CIO; 

FEDERATION OF STATE, CULTURAL 

AND EDUCATIONAL PROFESSIONALS, 

LOCAL 2383 AMERICAN FEDERATION 

OF TEACHERS PENNSYLVANIA, AFLCIO; AND UNITED FOOD AND 

COMMERCIAL WORKERS, LOCAL 1776, 

AFL-CIO,

Intervenors

PETITION OF: AMERICAN FEDERATION 

OF STATE, COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL 

EMPLOYEES, COUNCIL 13, AFL-CIO; 

FEDERATION OF STATE, CULTURAL 

AND EDUCATIONAL PROFESSIONALS, 

LOCAL 2383 AMERICAN FEDERATION 

OF TEACHERS PENNSYLVANIA, AFLCIO; AND UNITED FOOD AND 

COMMERCIAL WORKERS, LOCAL 1776, 

AFL-CIO,

Intervenors

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 82 MM 2016

DISSENTING STATEMENT

CHIEF JUSTICE SAYLOR FILED: November 10, 2016
[82 MM 2016] - 2

I respectfully dissent from the grant of this Petition for Review, as the majority 

offers no indication that it has applied the standard governing review of the 

Commonwealth Court’s discretionary decision to deny certification of a non-final order 

for interlocutory appeal by permission. Upon application of that controlling standard –

which requires an assessment of whether such denial was so egregious as to justify 

prerogative appellate correction, see Pa.R.A.P. 1311, Note – I find nothing egregious in 

the Commonwealth Court’s denial. Indeed, to the degree that the refusal to certify could 

be considered egregious, I believe it would be salutary for this Court to provide some 

guiding explanation pertaining to the irregularity, so that courts of original jurisdiction 

may prospectively conform to this Court’s expectations. 

Justice Mundy joins this dissenting statement.
# Commentary: Instructor Reflects on Women's History, Tailhook Scandal

/ Published March 22, 2021
Norfolk Naval Base, VA, 
It was circa 1992, CAPT Paul T. Kennedy, USN (ret) was adamant that I would be an excellent military officer. So, while applying to colleges and on the hunt to figure “what I wanted to be when I grow up,” he encouraged me to consider the US Navy. I was a bit shy, not sure the military was the right choice for me, and hesitant to ‘deal with’ men who did not see woman as equal. It was also during this same period that the Navy “Tailhook” scandal was grabbing the headlines and unfolding a true miscarriage of treatment toward women in the military. 

Fast forward to 2002 and CAPT Kennedy (ret) commissioned 2Lt Jennifer Kennedy into the US Air Force. It took ten years, and not only did I find my voice as a strong female, but the military also came a long way to understand that woman are equals and, in many cases, better able to be successful leaders in our military.  

While the Tailhook scandal of 1991 played a large role in my initial decision to *not*consider the military at the time, the scandal – or more specifically, the woman involved – played an even larger role in my ultimate decision to join. I admired the strength of these junior-ranking female officers to stand up for what is right and against the leadership of a male-dominated Defense Department. Not only did those women initiate a larger investigation into inappropriate sexual behavior, but they also leveled the playing field for woman to enter combat operational positions.  

Those women, plus many after, paved a path for me and countless other women to be successful in our military. Because those women were strong enough to ‘deal with’ the inequalities, they ultimately rewrote history through their perseverance. We owe them a debt of gratitude that cannot be fully expressed or repaid. We are the world’s best military because of them. 

I was asked “what are you most proud of” as a woman. I am most proud of my success in the military. My dad joined me when I pinned on Major and Lieutenant Colonel - second only to me, was him - so proud his daughter found her voice...and as he had always known I could be, I was a successful female military officer.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 344 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. J. RES. 344

    Designating May 14, 1994, as ``National Police Survivors Day''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 23, 1994

 Mr. Manton (for himself and Ms. Dunn) introduced the following joint 
  resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Post Office and 
                             Civil Service

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
    Designating May 14, 1994, as ``National Police Survivors Day''.

Whereas the police officers of America work devotedly and selflessly to serve 
        and protect the people of this Nation, regardless of the peril or hazard 
        to themselves;
Whereas each year nearly 150 Federal, State, and municipal police officers are 
        tragically killed in the line of duty while safeguarding the lives and 
        property of their fellow Americans;
Whereas the lives of surviving family members of police officers killed in the 
        line of duty are forever changed; and
Whereas these survivors, who have experienced such great loss, have earned the 
        gratitude of the Nation: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That May 14, 1994, is 
designated as ``National Police Survivors Day'', and the President is 
authorized and requested to issue a proclamation calling on the people 
of the United States to observe the day with appropriate ceremonies and 
activities.

                                 <all>
```
Complete Incomplete NotApplicable To Rule Material Missing

ADMINISTRATIVE MATERIALS (perAppendixV. Section 21) (a) Submittal letterfrom Governor/designee 

### x x (b) Evidence ofadoption X X (c) State/District legal authorityto adopt 

### x x (dl) Copyofactual rule/plan X X (d2) Rule changes indicated by underline/cross-out 

### x x (e) Proofthat action met procedural requirements 

### x x (f) Copy ofpublic notice X X (g) Certification that hearing fulfilled public notice X X (h) Public comments & agency response 

### x x TECHNICAL SUPPORT (perAppendixV, Section 2.2) (a) Regulated pollutants identified X X (b) Affected sources & attainment, status identified X X ~(c) Rule/plan emissions impact N/A N/A (d) Attainment, PSD & other required demonstration N/A N/A (e) Modeling support as appropriate N/A N/A (f) Reliance on continuous emission reductions N/A X (g) Evidence of limits & other needed requirements N/A X (i) Justiflcation fordeviation from EPA policy N/A N/A
OVERALL COMPLETENESS C C 

# I

EPA Region 9 SIP COMPLETENESS CHECKLIST To evaluate compliance with 40 CFR 51, AppendixV

Submittal Date June21, 2011 District Name Eastern Kern APCD Date Reviewed June30,2011 EPA Reviewer C.G. Allen Key: C = NIA= 0 =

j102 202 

# 1

Notes:
# Official Journal C 220/2006

| | ISSN 1725-2423 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 220 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 4913 September 2006 |

ISSN 1725-2423

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 220

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 4913 September 2006

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | I   Information |
| | Commission |
| 2006/C 220/1 | Euro exchange rates | 1 |
| 2006/C 220/2 | Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (1) | 2 |
| 2006/C 220/3 | Commission notice concerning the date of application of the protocols on rules of origin providing for diagonal cumulation between the Community, Algeria, Bulgaria, Egypt, Faroe Islands, Iceland, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, Norway, Romania, Switzerland (including Liechtenstein), Syria, Tunisia, Turkey and West Bank and Gaza Strip | 5 |
| 2006/C 220/4 | Publication of existing State aid measures in the new Member States in the sector of transport (1) | 7 |
| 2006/C 220/5 | Information procedure — Technical rules (1) | 13 |

Notice No

Contents

page

I   Information

Commission

2006/C 220/1

Euro exchange rates

1

2006/C 220/2

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (1)

2

2006/C 220/3

Commission notice concerning the date of application of the protocols on rules of origin providing for diagonal cumulation between the Community, Algeria, Bulgaria, Egypt, Faroe Islands, Iceland, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, Norway, Romania, Switzerland (including Liechtenstein), Syria, Tunisia, Turkey and West Bank and Gaza Strip

5

2006/C 220/4

Publication of existing State aid measures in the new Member States in the sector of transport (1)

7

2006/C 220/5

Information procedure — Technical rules (1)

13

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                           2,783
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  106,240
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               124,271
<PP&E>                                          57,393
<DEPRECIATION>                                  14,537
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 507,162
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           52,174
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           315
<OTHER-SE>                                     277,695
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   507,162
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               100,949
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   86,908
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,988
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 11,082
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,211
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              6,871
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     6,871
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .14
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .14
        

</TABLE>
```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 39 (Thursday, February 27, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 11174]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-04344]

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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 8648]

Advisory Committee on International Postal and Delivery Services

AGENCY: Department of State.

ACTION: Notice; FACA Committee meeting announcement.

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

SUMMARY: As required by the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 
92-463, the Department of State gives notice of a meeting of the 
Advisory Committee on International Postal and Delivery Services. This 
Committee has been formed in fulfillment of the provisions of the 2006 
Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act (Pub. L. 109-435) and in 
accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act.

DATES: Date and Time: The meeting will be held on Friday, March 14, 
from 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.
    Location: The American Institute of Architects, Board Room, 1735 
New York Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20006.
    Public input: Any member of the public interested in providing 
public input to the meeting should contact Mr. Joe Murphy, whose 
contact information is listed under for further information section of 
this notice. Each individual providing oral input is requested to limit 
his or her comments to five minutes. Requests to be added to the 
speaker list must be received in writing (letter, email or fax) prior 
to the close of business on Monday, March 10, 2014; written comments 
from members of the public for distribution at this meeting must reach 
Mr. Murphy by letter, email or fax by this same date. A member of the 
public requesting reasonable accommodation should make the request to 
Mr. Murphy by that same date.
    Meeting agenda: The agenda of the meeting will include: A review of 
the major proposals and issues to be considered by the March/April 
Postal Operations Council meeting in Bern, Switzerland and other 
subjects related to international postal and delivery services of 
interest to Advisory Committee members and the public.
    For further information, please contact Mr. Joe Murphy of the 
Office of Global Systems (IO/GS), Bureau of International Organization 
Affairs, U.S. Department of State, at (202) 647-4197 or by email at 
murphyjp@state.gov.

    Dated: February 21, 2014.
Robert J. Faucher,
Director, Office of Global Systems, Bureau of International 
Organization Affairs, Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2014-04344 Filed 2-26-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-19-P
```
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

JUSTIN JONES, #1887186, )

Petitioner, )

vs. ) No. 3:22-CV-1521-B-BH

)

STATE OF TEXAS, )

Respondent. )

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

After reviewing all relevant matters of record in this case, including the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge and any objections thereto, in

accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court is of the opinion that the Findings and Conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are correct and they are accepted as the Findings and Conclusions of

the Court. By separate judgment, this case will be dismissed for failure to prosecute or comply with

court orders.

In accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 22(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) and after considering the

record in this case and the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, the petitioner is DENIED a

Certificate of Appealability, to the extent required because the underlying action for this case is

criminal in nature. The Court adopts and incorporates by reference the Magistrate Judge's Findings,

Conclusions, and Recommendation in support of its finding that the petitioner has failed to show (1)

that reasonable jurists would find this Court’s “assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or

wrong,” or (2) that reasonable jurists would find “it debatable whether the petition states a valid

claim of the denial of a constitutional right” and “debatable whether [this Court] was correct in its

Case 3:22-cv-01521-B-BH Document 6 Filed 11/28/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 21
procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).1

In the event that the petitioner files a notice of appeal, he must pay the $505.00 appellate

filing fee or submit a motion to proceed in forma pauperis that is accompanied by a properly signed

certificate of inmate trust account.

SIGNED this 28, day of November, 2022.

_________________________________

JANE J. BOYLE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1 Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, as amended effective on

December 1, 2019, reads as follows: 

(a) Certificate of Appealability. The district court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability

when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant. Before entering the final order, the court may

direct the parties to submit arguments on whether a certificate should issue. If the court issues a

certificate, the court must state the specific issue or issues that satisfy the showing required by 28

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Ifthe court denies a certificate, the parties may not appeal the denial but may

seek a certificate from the court of appeals under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 22. A

motion to reconsider a denial does not extend the time to appeal.

(b) Time to Appeal. Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a) governs the time to appeal an order

entered under these rules. A timely notice of appeal must be filed even if the district court issues

a certificate of appealability.

2

Case 3:22-cv-01521-B-BH Document 6 Filed 11/28/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 22
From: Susan Miller [mailto:SMiller@bia.org]

Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2015 12:42 PM

To: Nizich, Sharon

Subject: RE: Call tomorrow

For your records, people who will be on the call today:

John Sanders, National Brick Research Center

Garth Tayler, Acme Brick

Warren Paschal, General Shale

Terry Schimmel, Boral Brick

Susan Miller, BIA

Paul Regina, BIA

We will talk to you soon.

susan

From: Nizich, Sharon [mailto:Nizich.Sharon@epa.gov]

Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2015 7:03 AM

To: Susan Miller

Subject: RE: Call tomorrow

Ok!

Sharon Nizich

Environmental Engineer

U.S. EPA/OAR/OAQPS

Sector Policies and Programs Division (SPPD)

109 TW Alexander Dr. (D243-04)

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

(919) 541-2825 – Office

(919) 541-5450 – Fax
From: Susan Miller [mailto:SMiller@bia.org]

Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2015 7:26 PM

To: Nizich, Sharon <Nizich.Sharon@epa.gov>

Cc: Raymond, Gabrielle <graymond@rti.org>; Sroka, Kristin <ksroka@rti.org>; Holloway, 

Thomas C. (Tom) <tcholloway@rti.org>

Subject: RE: Call tomorrow

Garth, Terry and I are all at Clemson at a meeting. We will be calling in.

From: Nizich, Sharon [mailto:Nizich.Sharon@epa.gov]

Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2015 1:18 PM

To: Susan Miller

Cc: Gabrielle; Kristin Sroka; Tom Holloway

Subject: Call tomorrow

Hello Susan

- I am just checking to see if you are coming in, or if you are calling in, tomorrow. Thanks.

Sharon Nizich

Environmental Engineer

U.S. EPA/OAR/OAQPS

Sector Policies and Programs Division (SPPD)

109 TW Alexander Dr. (D243-04)

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

(919) 541-2825 – Office

(919) 541-5450 – Fax
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

JEROME L. GRIMES, §

§

Plaintiff, §

vs. § Civil Action No. 3:22-CV-1933-X (BH)

§

SANTANDER CONSUMER USA, §

§

Defendant. § Referred to U.S. Magistrate Judge1

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Based on the relevant filings and applicable law, Plaintiff’s Motion Request[s] for Service of

Subpoenas on the Defendant by the U.S.Marshalls (F.R.C.P., Rules 17(b), filed September 26, 2023

(docs. 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29), are DENIED.

Citing “F.R.C.P., Rule 17(b)”, the plaintiff seeks to have the United States Marshal serve

approximately 70 subpoenas. Because Rule 17(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure concerns

the capacity of a party to sue or be sued, he appears to rely on Rule 17(b) of the Federal Rules of

Criminal Procedure. That rule provides for the issuance of subpoenas and payment of process costs

and witness fees for indigent criminal defendants where necessary for an adequate defense. Fed. R.

Crim. P. 17(b). The rule does not apply in civil cases such as this one, however. See Walton v. Yates,

No. CIV.A.3:94-CV-2007-D, 1996 WL 734953, at *1 (N.D. Tex. Dec. 10, 1996); see also Badman

v. Stark, 139 F.R.D. 601, 604 (M.D. Pa. 1991) (noting that there is no provision for the payment of

witness fees on behalf of an indigent party in civil actions similar to Fed. R. Crim. P. 17(b)) (citing

Dortly v. Bailey, 431 F. Supp. 247, 248 (M.D. Fla. 1977) (in turn citing Estep v. United States, 251

F.2d 579, 582 (5th Cir. 1958)); Anderson v. Witherspoon, No. 7:15CV00236, 2017 WL 1194739, at

*2 (W.D. Va. Mar. 30, 2017), aff’d, 704 F. App’x 238 (4th Cir. 2017). The plaintiff is also required

1

By Special Order No. 3-251, this pro se case has been automatically referred for full case management.

Case 3:22-cv-01933-X-BH Document 30 Filed 09/27/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID 389
by Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 to tender witness fees and mileage costs, which courts are not authorized to

waive or pay on behalf of litigants proceeding in forma pauperis, even if the litigant could show that

the Marshal was required to serve them. See id. (citing Hodge v. Prince, 730 F. Supp. 747, 750-51

(N. D. Tex. 1990) and Pedraza v. Jones, 71 F.3d 194, 196 n.4 (5th Cir. 1995); see also Badman, 139

F.R.D. at 604; Anderson, 2017 WL 1194739, at *2; Strahan v. Hussey, No. CIV.A 08-11251-RGS,

2009 WL 1364758, at *1 (D. Mass. May 13, 2009) (collecting cases). The plaintiff has neither shown

that the Marshal should be ordered to serve his subpoenas, and he has failed to tender the witness fees

and mileage costs for his 70 subpoenas.

The plaintiff’s motions are DENIED.

SO ORDERED on this 27th day of September, 2023.

 ___________________________________

 IRMA CARRILLO RAMIREZ

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 3:22-cv-01933-X-BH Document 30 Filed 09/27/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID 390