alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

BRIAN T. KELLEHER, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

MICHAEL REGAN, 

Defendant. 

 No. 23-cv-01346 (DLF)

ORDER

 Before the Court is the defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, Dkt. 42. For the 

reasons stated, the Court will DENY the motion as moot. 

Brian Kelleher, proceeding pro se, filed his third amended complaint on December 27, 

2023, bringing claims against the Environmental Protection Agency for alleged violations related 

to the agency’s treatment of climate change. Amended Complaint, Dkt. 24. On August 23, 

2024, the Court dismissed the plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint for failure to comply with 

Rules 8 and 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Order, at 2, Dkt. 41. The Court 

instructed the plaintiff to file any amended complaint on or before September 23, 2024, or the 

case would be dismissed. Id., at 4. On September 23, 2024, instead of filing an amended 

complaint, the plaintiff filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, Dkt. 42. Because the plaintiff 

currently has no claim before the Court, his motion for summary judgment is moot. See Carty v. 

CVS Pharma., LLC, 264 F. Supp. 3d 190, 198 n.8 (D.D.C. 2017). Further, the plaintiff has been 

given three opportunities to file a complaint that complies with the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure. He has failed to do so by the deadline the Court imposed, despite the Court’s clear 

warning that this was his “final opportunity.” Order, at 4. 
2 

Accordingly, it is 

ORDERED that the plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, Dkt. 42, is DENIED AS 

MOOT. This is a final appealable order. 

The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case and mail a copy of this Order to the 

plaintiff’s address of record. 

SO ORDERED.

 ________________________ 

 DABNEY L. FRIEDRICH

September 26, 2024 United States District Judge
### Request for Informatio n Cobb UAS (FAA-2015-4167) 9-AWA-AVS-333Exemptions (FAA) Dear Mr. Hershcopf: This letter is to inform you that the following information is missing from your petition (Docket No. FAA − 2015 − 4167). This information is necessary for the Federal Aviation Administrati on (FAA) to process your p etition. z Describe the aircraft make(s), model(s), and type(s)(i.e., fixed - wing, rotorcraft, lighter - than - air) for the proposed UAS operation. The description(s) should include the maximum weight (including payload). This information can be located in the aircraft manual(s). Please submit the additional informati on (non-proprietary) to your docket at www.regulations.gov . Once your information has been submitted, plea se also send a copy of the requested information (and any proprietary information), as well as your comm ent tracking number from regulations.gov via e-mail to 333exemptions@faa.gov. I f you want us to process your request any further, we mu st receive the information de scribed above by December 9, 2015. If we do not receive the information, we wi ll close the docket without notifying you further. If you have any questions, please feelfree to contact me at (202) 267-2999. FAA Office of Rulemaking Sent : Wednesday , November 25, 2015 9:52 AM To: j ason.hershcopf@cobbuas.com
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-60354 Summary Calendar

ELIUS REED, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus THE POLICE DEPARTMENT OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, MISSISSIPPI; ET AL, Defendants-Appellees, versus ROBERT F. BRAND, DET.; ET AL, Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 4:93-CV-162W

- - - - - - - - - - March 9, 1998 Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES and PARKER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Elius Reed appeals the dismissal of his civil rights complaint alleging that the district court abused its discretion in denying Reed’s motion for a default judgment, improperly granted the defendants a stay of discovery, and erred in grantingNo. 95-60354 -2- the defendants’ motions to dismiss. We have reviewed the record and the briefs of the parties and find no reversible error.

Reed’s claims bought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 are barred for failure to satisfy Heck v. Humphrey , 512 U.S. 477 (1994). AFFIRMED.
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 187 (Thursday, September 26, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 78900]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-21988]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Investigation Nos. 701-TA-481 and 731-TA-1190 (Second Review)]


Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells and Modules From China

Determinations

    On the basis of the record \1\ developed in the subject five-year 
reviews, the United States International Trade Commission 
(``Commission'') determines, pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (``the 
Act''), that revocation of the countervailing and antidumping duty 
orders on crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells and modules from China 
would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material 
injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably 
foreseeable time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The record is defined in Sec.  207.2(f) of the Commission's 
Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 207.2(f)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background

    The Commission instituted these reviews on February 1, 2024 (89 FR 
6550) and determined on May 6, 2024 that it would conduct expedited 
reviews (89 FR 48442, June 6, 2024).
    The Commission made these determinations pursuant to section 751(c) 
of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)). It completed and filed its 
determinations in these reviews on September 20, 2024. The views of the 
Commission are contained in USITC Publication 5546 (September 2024), 
entitled Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells and Modules from China: 
Investigation Nos. 701-TA-481 and 731 TA 1190 (Second Review).

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: September 20, 2024.
Lisa Barton,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2024-21988 Filed 9-25-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 7
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
financial statements contained in the Form 10-Q for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 1996 for Aetna Inc. and is qualified in its entirety
by reference to such statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                            30,956
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                                0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                                  0
<EQUITIES>                                       1,235
<MORTGAGE>                                       7,172
<REAL-ESTATE>                                    1,101
<TOTAL-INVEST>                                  42,435
<CASH>                                           2,159
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                                   0
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                           2,141
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  91,540
<POLICY-LOSSES>                                 18,340
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                                217
<POLICY-OTHER>                                   1,947
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                           20,483
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                  2,382
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              865
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         4,104
<OTHER-SE>                                       5,943
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    91,540
<PREMIUMS>                                       6,243
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                              2,678
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                                  74
<OTHER-INCOME>                                   1,625
<BENEFITS>                                       7,157
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                        124
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                                 0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    487
<INCOME-TAX>                                       175
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                312
<DISCONTINUED>                                     446
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       758
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     5.92
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0<F1>
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                       0
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                                  0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                    0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                                   0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                     0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                      0
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                              0
<FN>
<F1>There is no material difference between primary
and fully diluted earnings per share for the period 
presented.
</FN>
        


</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

 Respondent

 v.

THOMAS R. RODMAN,

 Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 111 WAL 2014

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 28th day of August, 2014, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED.
# Official Journal C 3/2013

| | ISSN 1977-091X
  doi:10.3000/1977091X.C_2013.003.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 3 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 568 January 2013 |

ISSN 1977-091X

doi:10.3000/1977091X.C_2013.003.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 3

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 568 January 2013

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2013/C 003/01 | Euro exchange rates | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2013/C 003/01

Euro exchange rates

1

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY |
| | European Commission |
| 2013/C 003/02 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.6802 — Droege/ALSO-Actebis) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (1) | 2 |

V   Announcements

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY

European Commission

2013/C 003/02

Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.6802 — Droege/ALSO-Actebis) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (1)

2

---

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

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

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

EN
Exhibit 32.1 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report On Form 10-Q of Diversified Restaurant Holdings, Inc. (the "Company") for the quarter ending March 31, 2009, I, T. Michael Ansley, Chief Executive Officer of the Company hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that: 1. Such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending March 31, 2009, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending March 31, 2009, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.  Dated:  May 15, 2009 DIVERSIFIED RESTAURANT HOLDINGS, INC. By:  /s/ T. Michael Ansley T. Michael Ansley  Exhibit 32.2 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report On Form 10-Q of Diversified Restaurant Holdings, Inc. (the "Company") for the quarter ending March 31, 2009, I, Jason T. Curtis, Chief Financial Officer of the Company hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that: 1. Such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending March 31, 2009, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending March 31, 2009, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.  Dated:  May 15, 2009 DIVERSIFIED RESTAURANT HOLDINGS, INC. By:  /s/ Jason T. Curtis Jason T. Curtis
Exhibit 32.2




CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


18 U.S.C., SECTION 1350




In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of The Parkview Group, Inc. (the “Company”) for the three (3) month and nine (9) month periods ended September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, David Dodge, President of our Company, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that, to my knowledge:




1.          The Report fully complies 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 result of operations of our Company.




/s/ David DodgeDavid DodgeChief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)November 15, 2010
## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S O F T E X A S

N O

. P D

- 1 6 5 6

- 1 3

L A R R Y J O R D A N , A p p e l l a n t

v .

T H E S T A T E O F T E X A S

O N S T A T E ’ S P E T I T I O N F O R D I S C R E T I O N A R Y R E V I E W F R O M T H E F O U R T E E N T H C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

H A R R I S C O U N T Y

P e r c u r i a m .

O P I N I O N

A p p e l l a n t w a s c o n v i c t e d o f a g g r a v a t e d r o b b e r y a n d s e n t e n c e d t o 1 2 y e a r s i n p r i s o n

.

O n a p p e a l , h e a r g u e d t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e w a s i n s u f f i c i e n t t o s u p p o r t t h e $ 2 9 9 i n c o u r t c o s t s

a s s e s s e d a g a i n s t h i m i n t h e j u d g m e n t

. T h e C o u r t o f A p p e a l s a g r e e d , r e l y i n g o n i t s o w n

o p i n i o n i n J

o h n s o n v

. S t a t e , 3 8 9 S

. W

. 3 d 5 1 3 ( T e x

. A p p

. – H o u s t o n [ 1 4 D i s t

. ] 2 0 1 2 )

. t hJ O R D A N

- 2

J o r d a n v

. S t a t e , N o

. 1 4

- 1 2

- 0 0 9 7 0

- C R , 2 0 1 3 T e x

. A p p

. L E X I S 1 4 0 1 0 ( T e x

. A p p

. – H o u s t o n
[ 1 4 D i s t

. ] N o v e m b e r 1 4 , 2 0 1 3 ) ( n o t d e s i g n a t e d f o r p u b l i c a t i o n )

. t h

T h e S t a t e h a s f

i l e d a p e t i t i o n f

o r d i s c r e t i o n a r y r e v i e w o f t h i s d e c i s i o n

. W e r e c e n t l y

h a n d e d d o w n o u r o p i n i o n i n J o h n s o n v

. S t a t e , N o

. P D

- 0 1 9 3

- 1 3 , 2 0 1 4 T e x

. C r i m

. A p p

.

L E X I S 2 4 0 ( T e x

. C r i m

. A p p

. F e b r u a r y 2 6 , 2 0 1 4 ) , i n w h i c h w e s e t f o r t h a r o a d m a p f

o r

r e s o l v i n g q u e s t i o n s r e g a r d i n g c o u r t c o s t s

. S e e a l s o C a r d e n a s v

. S t a t e , N o

. P D

- 0 7 3 3

- 1 3 , 2 0 1 4

T e x

. C r i m

. A p p

. L E X I S 2 3 6 ( T e x

. C r i m

. A p p

. F e b r u a r y 2 6 , 2 0 1 4 )

.

T h e C o u r t o f A p p e a l s i n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e d i d n o t h a v e t h e b e n e f i t o f o u r o p i n i o n i n

J o h n s o n

. A c c o r d i n g l y , w e g r a n t t h e S t a t e ’ s p e t i t i o n f o r d i s c r e t i o n a r y r e v i e w , v a c a t e t h e
j u d g m e n t o f t h e C o u r t o f A p p e a l s , a n d r e m a n d t h i s c a s e t o t h e C o u r t o f A p p e a l s i n l i g h t o f

o u r o p i n i o n i n J

o h n s o n

. N o m o t i o n f

o r r e h e a r i n g w i l l b e e n t e r t a i n e d

.

D e l i v e r e d : A p r i l 1 6 , 2 0 1 4 D o N o t P u b l i s h
PORTLAND GENERAL CORPORATION
                            AMENDED AND RESTATED
                 OUTSIDE DIRECTORS' STOCK COMPENSATION PLAN
                               AMENDMENT NO. 1

     THIS   AMENDMENT   to   the  Amended  and  Restated  Portland  General
Corporation Outside Directors' Stock Compensation Plan (the "Plan") is made
and  entered  into this 2nd day  of  October,  1996,  by  Portland  General
Corporation (the "Corporation");

     WHEREAS, the  Corporation  has  established  the  Plan  as amended and
restated February 6, 1996; and

     WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 11.1 of the Plan, the Board  of Directors
of  the  Corporation  may  amend  the  Plan, provided that the Plan is  not
amended  more  than  once  each  six months and  no  such  amendment  shall
adversely affect any then outstanding Award; and

     WHEREAS, the Board of Directors,  by resolutions adopted September 10,
1996, deems it in the best interest of the  Corporation  to amend the Plan,
and that the following amendment does not adversely affect  any outstanding
Award under the Plan;

     NOW, THEREFORE, effective as of September 10, 1996, the Plan is hereby
amended as follows:

     Section 4.1 is amended to read as follows:

     "4.1.  VESTING; DELIVERY OF SHARES; FORFEITURES.

          4.1  Subject to Sections 3.2(a) and 4.2 through 4.5,  shares
     of Common Stock  in  an Award shall vest 100 percent on the third
     Anniversary Date.  Five-Year  Awards  and Transition Awards shall
     vest and be released as set forth in Section  8.  Notwithstanding
     the  foregoing,  all  Shares  of Common Stock in any  outstanding
     Award  shall  vest  100  percent  on   the   effective  date  and
     consummation  of  the  merger of Enron Corporation  and  Portland
     General Corporation agreed  to in that certain Agreement and Plan
     of


PAGE 1 - AMENDMENT NO. 1 - ODSC PLAN

                                  <PAGE>

     Merger  by  and  between  Enron  Corporation,   Portland  General
     Corporation and New Falcon Corp., dated as of July  20,  1996, as
     that Agreement may be amended or restated from time to time.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Corporation has caused this instrument  to  be
executed as of the day and year first above written.


                              PORTLAND GENERAL CORPORATION


                         By:  /S/ JOSEPH M. HIRKO

                              Joseph M. Hirko
                              Senior Vice President-Finance


PAGE 2 - AMENDMENT NO. 1 - ODSC PLAN

                                    <PAGE>
#### ALEXANDER v. STATE.

No. 16395.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 21, 1934.

W. W. Ballard, of Wichita Falls, for appellant.

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

MORROW, Presiding Judge.

The offense is assault with intent to rape; penalty assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for two years.

The record is before this court without ■statement of facts or bills of exception.

The indictment is defective to a degree that renders a reversal of the judgment necessary, in that it fails to allege that the female, who was under the age of consent, was not the wife of the appellant. Throughout the history of the jurisprudence of this state, an indictment omitting such averment has been regarded as insufficient to charge the offense. See Bullock v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 54 S. W.(2d) 91, and precedents therein cited.

The judgment is reversed, and the prosecution ordered dismissed.
IIB 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3032 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOVEMBER 17, 2015 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and 

Urban Affairs 

AN ACT 

To amend the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to repeal 

a certain reporting requirement of the Securities and 

Exchange Commission. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 3032 RFS

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Securities and Ex3 change Commission Reporting Modernization Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. ELIMINATION OF REPORTING REQUIREMENT. 

5 Paragraph (6) of section 21(h) of the Securities Ex6 change Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78u(h)) is repealed. 

Passed the House of Representatives November 16, 

2015. 

Attest: KAREN L. HAAS, 

Clerk. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
VICENTE CUELLAR,

Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee. §

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 18

- 00133

- CR

Appeal from the

171st District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(20160D04843)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was no reversible

error in the judgment. We therefore affirm the judgment of the court below. This decision shall be

certified below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 28TH OF MAY, 2021.

YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Chief Justice

Before Rodriguez, C.J., Palafox, and Alley, JJ.
Order entered August 11, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-01143-CV

KAIZER SHERIFF, Appellant

V.

SHEHNAZ MOOSA, Appellee

On Appeal from the 380th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 380-54072-2011

ORDER

Appellant’s motion for leave to supplement appellant’s brief is DENIED.

/s/ DAVID L. BRIDGES 

JUSTICE