alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

PRINCESS MARIA SPENCER
, ) ) Plaintiff, ) )

v. ) Civil Action No. 23

- 0 799 (UNA) ) GREYHOUND BUS LINES, INC.
, ) ) Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on review of this pro se plaintiff’s application to proceed

in forma pauperis and h er civil complaint

.
The Court has reviewed the plaintiff’s complaint, keeping in mind that complaints filed

by pro se litigants are held to less stringent standards than ar e applied to formal pleadings drafted

by lawyers. See Haines v. Kerner , 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). Even pro se litigants must comply

with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Jarrell v. Tisch , 656 F. Supp. 237, 239 (D.D.C.

1987). Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that a complaint contain a

short and plain statement of the grounds upon which the Court’s jurisdiction depends, a short and

plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and a demand for

judgment for the relief the pleader seeks. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). The purpose of the minimum

standard of Rule 8 is to give fair notice to the defendants of the claim being asserted, sufficient to

prepare a responsive answer, to prepare an adequate defense and to determine whether the

doctrine of res judicata applies. Brown v. Califano
, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977).

In conclusory fashion, plaintiff alleges she “was discriminated against, stalked, and

[subjected to] hate crime while riding Greyhound buses and in Greyhound terminals.” Compl. at2

1. For example, plaintiff alleges she “was almost attacked once” and was exposed to “persons

playing the witchcraft/voodoo game[,]” id ., Ex. (ECF No. 1

- 1) at 2, while tra velling on

unspecified dates through multiple states, see id ., Ex. at 3. She also alleges that she was

overcharged. See id

. Plaintiff demands “restitution for and/or pain and suffering in the amount

of 17 trillion dollars[.]” Compl. at 1.

As drafted, t he complaint fails to meet the minimal pleading standard set forth in Rule 8.

The complaint does not state a basis for this Court’s jurisdiction and a cogent statement of an

actual legal claim. So few facts are alleged that no defendant reasonably could be expected to

prepare a proper response to the complaint.

The Court will grant the plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2)

a nd will dismiss the complaint and this civil action without prejudice . An Order consistent with

this Memorandum Opinion is issued separately.

DATE: May 9, 2023 /s/ JIA M. COBB United States District Judge
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

JOHNATHAN ROBINS,

 Petitioner

 v.

EZEKIEL ROBINS,

 Respondent

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 417 EAL 2014

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 19th day of November, 2014, the Petition for Allowance of

Appeal is DENIED.
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed March 

17, 2020.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-20-00187-CV

IN RE LAWRENCE FEW, Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

WRIT OF MANDAMUS

Probate Court No. 3

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 406,394

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On March 6, 2020, relator Lawrence Few filed a [“preemptive”] petition for 

writ of mandamus in this court without filing a record. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. 

§ 22.221; see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the petition, relator asks this court to 

compel the presiding judge of Probate Court No. 3 of Harris County, to “execute the 

valid will [of his mother] and end this probate proceeding.” 
2

Relator has not established that he is entitled to mandamus relief. 

Accordingly, we deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Christopher, Wise, and Zimmerer.
### Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA

- 

### FAA 20 13

- 0447 Directorate Identifier: 

### 20 13

- NE

- 17

- AD

If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If they do not, click (or Tab) int o and then out of the changed cell

.

**Estimated Costs:**

Action (e.g., Inspection, replacement) Do not include on

condition costs here Costs per **Product** (e.g., aircraft, engine,

propeller, appliance) Work

- hours (include access, testing, and close

- up) Labo r

cost (@$8 5 /h our) Parts Cost Total Costs (labor + parts) Number of

**U.S. Registered**  **Products** Total Cost

for U.S. Fleet



### Operation prohibition 0.0 $ 0.00 $0 $ 0.00 

### 20 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0 .00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00


### The known number of products in compliance: Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $ 0 

### Costs covered under warranty ( if known ) $

**On**

**- Condition Costs:** 

Action (e.g., Inspection, replacement) Work

- hours

(include access, testing, and close

up) Labor cost

(@$8 5/hour) Parts Cost Cost per Product

$ 0.00 $ $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00



### Special considerations for Economic Analysis ( Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs) 

### : 

### N/A

### Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulator y action”?

YES * NO

* E xplanation: **DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:**
Is the AD significant?

YES * NO

* Explanation: **Regulatory Flexibility Act:** Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? E xplain for

either a Yes or No answer.
YES NO Explanation:

**Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:**
This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transpo rtation?

YES * NO



### * E xplanation 

### :
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                           7
<CIK>                         0001013564
<NAME>                        Farm Family Holdings, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 Jan-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   Jun-30-1999
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                           958,986
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                          8,046
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                            8,029
<EQUITIES>                                     50,944
<MORTGAGE>                                     21,143
<REAL-ESTATE>                                  0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                                 1,070,081
<CASH>                                         29,005
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                             23,273
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                         16,651
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 1,238,759
<POLICY-LOSSES>                                413,184
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                            76,187
<POLICY-OTHER>                                 21,313
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                          0
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          5,830
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       61
<OTHER-SE>                                     1,723
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   1,238,759
<PREMIUMS>                                     102,353
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                            22,276
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                             212
<OTHER-INCOME>                                 736
<BENEFITS>                                     77,145
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                    26,975
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                           0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                12,975
<INCOME-TAX>                                   3,993
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            8,982
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   8,897
<EPS-BASIC>                                  1.57
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  1.56
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                 143,525
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                            79,957
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                              492
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                             24,353
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                               39,144
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                160,477
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                        0



</TABLE>
[4910-I3-PI

DEPARTMENT OF TR<\NSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2008-1079j Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-116-AD)

RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (EMBRAER) Moc

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); reopening of comm

period.

SUMMARY: We are revising an earlier NPRM for the products lislCd above. This act! t Vj1r{ J

lJTIf"Us ••••••OO~

revises the earlier NPRM by expanding the scope. This proposed AD results from

mandatory continuing airworthiness infom1ation (MeAl) originated by an aviation

authority of another country to identi fy and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation

product. The earlier MeAl, Brazilian Airworthiness Directive 2007-08-02, effective

September 27,2007, describes the unsafe condition as:

Fuel system reassessment, performed according to RBHA-E88/SF AR-88

(Regulamcnto Brasileiro de Homologacao Aeronautica 88/Special Federal

Aviation Regulation No. 88), requires the inclusion of new maintenance

tasks in the Critical Design Configuration Control Limitations (CDCCL)

and in the Fuel System Limitations (FSL), necessary to preclude ignition

sources in the fuel system. * * *

-1/'1 l<'T'Al.SfSlG

R.,~

'J' /sllb

"QI{I'ING ~VM'lQL

- /(J
# C_2022454EN.01011101.xml

| 30.11.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 454/111 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.11.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 454/111

---

Report pursuant to Article 92(4) of the Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 on any contingent liabilities arising as a result of the performance by the Single Resolution Board, the Council or the Commission of their tasks under this Regulation for the 2021 financial year

(2022/C 454/03)

The European Court of Auditors has published its report pursuant to Article 92(4) of the Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 on any contingent liabilities arising as a result of the performance by the Single Resolution Board, the Council or the Commission of their tasks under this Regulation for the 2021 financial year, together with their replies, on 30 November 2022.

The report can be consulted directly or downloaded at the European Court of Auditors’ website:

https://www.eca.europa.eu/en/Pages/DocItem.aspx?did=62323

---
EXHIBIT16.1

November 13, 2002

 

Securities and Exchange CommissionMail Stop 11-3450 Fifth Street, N.W.Washington, DC 20549

 

DearSirs/Madams:

We have read Item 4 of First Commonwealth Financial    Corporation's Form 8-K dated November 13, 2002, and have the following comments:

1.  We agree with the statements made in the second,    third, fourth and fifth paragraphs therein.

2.  We have no basis on which to agree or disagree    with the statements made in the first paragraph.

 

Yourstruly,

/S/Deloitte & Touche LLPPittsburgh, Pennsylvania
xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?


C\_2022307EN.01001201.xml


| | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 12.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 307/12 |

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case M.10839 – APOLLO CAPITAL MANAGEMENT / SCHUR FLEXIBLES GROUP)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2022/C 307/07)

1.

On 2 August 2022, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 [(1)](#ntr1-C_2022307EN.01001201-E0001).

This notification concerns the following undertakings:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | Apollo Capital Management, L.P. (‘Apollo’, United States), |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | Schur Flexibles GmbH, (‘Schur Flexibles’, Austria). |

Apollo will acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control over Schur Flexibles.

The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.

2.

The business activities of the undertakings concerned are the following:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | for Apollo: investing in various businesses throughout the world including, inter alia, companies in the chemical, real estate, insurance, paper, and television production businesses, |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | for Schur Flexibles: production and sale of flexible packaging products and trading of raw materials for its manufacture at global level. |

3.

On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.

Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 [(2)](#ntr2-C_2022307EN.01001201-E0002) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice.

4.

The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.

Observations must reach the Commission no later than 10 days following the date of this publication. The following reference should always be specified:

M.10839 – APOLLO CAPITAL MANAGEMENT / SCHUR FLEXIBLES GROUP

Observations can be sent to the Commission by email, by fax, or by post. Please use the contact details below:

Email: COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu

Fax +32 22964301

Postal address:

| |
| --- |
| European Commission |
| Directorate-General for Competition |
| Merger Registry |
| 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

---

[(1)](#ntc1-C_2022307EN.01001201-E0001)  [OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/oj/JOL_2004_024_R_TOC) (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

[(2)](#ntc2-C_2022307EN.01001201-E0002)  [OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/oj/JOC_2013_366_R_TOC).

---
#### GOODALE v. STATE.

No. 19844.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 8, 1938.

A. S. Baskett, of Dallas, and John J. Sargent and R. C. Roland, both of Houston, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

GRAVES, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of burglary, and his punishment assessed at twelve years in the penitentiary.

This cause comes before us without any statement of facts or bills of exception. The motion for a new trial contains many matters alleged to be errors committed by the trial court, which we are unable to correctly appraise on account of the absence of a statement of facts and bills of exceptions.

The indictment appears to be proper, and all proceedings herein seem to be regular, and we have no other alternative than to affirm the judgment, which is accordingly done.
#### WEAVER v. O’BANION et al.

No. 2626.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Beaumont.

Dec. 6, 1934.

Adams & McAlister, of Nacogdoches, for appellant.

Seale & Thompson, of Nacogdoches, for ap-pellees.

WALKER, Chief Justice.

Por a full statement of the nature of this suit, see opinion on former appeal, O’Banion, Sheriff, v. Noble Weaver (Tex. Civ. App.) 62 S.W.(2d) 212. As directed, the county court of Shelby county transferred the case to the county court of Nacogdoches county, where, upon trial, a general demurrer was sustained against appellant’s petition.

Under the law of the case as announced under the former opinion, the sustaining of the general demurrer was error. Appellant alleged that the automobile was delivered to the plaintiff in the original cause of action *289and to the sheriff and sold by them. The facts thus pleaded showed a delivery within the provisions of article 6853, R. O. S. 1925. See opinion on former appeal.

For a second reason the general demurrer was wrongfully sustained; appellant pleaded facts invalidating the sale of the automobile.

As a copy of the judgment in the original cause of action was not pleaded by appellant, nor the contents of the judgment fully disclosed, we can add nothing to our original opinion by way of instructions for the trial court.

Reversed and remanded.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-28-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-30-1997
<CASH>                                           9,837
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   44,974
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                57,680
<PP&E>                                           5,808
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  65,280
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           19,811
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            89
<OTHER-SE>                                      40,784
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    65,280
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               168,150
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  128,015
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                33,103
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  7,858
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,261
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,597
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,597
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .51
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
[Nos. 45399-8-I; 45452-8-I.

Division One.

December 26, 2000.]

#### Linda F. Murphy, et al., *Respondents,*v. Claudia M. Hewitt, et al., *Appellants.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Snohomish County, No. 96-2-05750-7, Richard J. Thorpe, J., entered September 3, 1999. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Agid, C.J., concurred in by Baker and Becker, JJ.
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 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 Annual Report of Applied Biosystems Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), I, Dennis L. Winger, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(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/ Dennis L. Winger   
|Chief Financial Officer

Date: August 27, 2008
# C_2022402EN.01000301.xml

| 19.10.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 402/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.10.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 402/3

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10909 – KFW / NEDERLANDSE GASUNIE / JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2022/C 402/03)

On 10 October 2022, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the ‘Competition policy’ website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the ‘Competition policy’ website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32022M10909. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32022M10909. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-07-00445-CR

Wendel Glenn Klotz, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY, 277TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 06-1426-K277, HONORABLE KEN ANDERSON, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

A jury found appellant Wendel Glenn Klotz guilty of felony driving while intoxicated.

See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 49.04(a) (West 2003), § 49.09(b)(2) (West Supp. 2007). The jury

assessed punishment, enhanced bytwo previousfelonyconvictions, at seventy years’ imprisonment.

Appellant’s court-appointed attorney filed a brief concluding that the appeal is

frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738

(1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no

arguable grounds to be advanced. See also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988); High v. State,

573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974);

Jackson v. State, 485 S.W.2d 553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137

(Tex. Crim. App. 1969). Appellant received a copy of counsel’s brief and was advised of his right

to examine the appellate record and to file a pro se brief. No pro se brief has been filed.
2

We have reviewed the record and counsel’s brief and agree that the appeal is frivolous

and without merit. We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. See

Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005)

The judgment of conviction is affirmed.

__________________________________________

Diane Henson, Justice

Before Justices Patterson, Puryear and Henson

Affirmed

Filed: April 23, 2008

Do Not Publish