alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
fsm 

AIR LINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION, INTERNATIONAL 

1 B2 5 MASSACHUSETT S AVENUE . N.NA/. D WASHINGTO N D.C . 20D3 B D 202-7ST-40S 7 

F A X SOS-VSV-^O-] 4 

June 29, 2010 

BY HAND DELIVERY 

Ms. Dorothy Beard - ^^• 

Chief, Docket Operations, M-30 ;: 

U.S. Department of Transportation i ;:4 

West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140 p 

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE 1. c5 

Washington, DC 20590 ' ' '^ 

Re: US-Japan Alliance Case 

Docket DOT-OST-2010-0059 

Dear Ms. Beard: 

Enclosed please find the original and two copies of Air Line Pilots Association's 

Confidential Answer in the US-Japan Alliance case. Docket DOT-OST-2010-0059. 

Confidential treatment is requested under § 302.12 consistent with the Department's 

Rule 12 procedures. 

i^avid Semafic^ik 

Attorney, Legal Department 

DS/jr 

Enclosures 

cc: All Parties on Service List for Confidential Documents 

SCHEDULE WITH SAFETY *'^l^^ 3 AFFILIATED WITH AFL-CIO
II

Calendar No. 555

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 345

[Report No. 106–297]

To amend the Animal Welfare Act to remove the limitation that permits

interstate movement of live birds, for the purpose of fighting, to States

in which animal fighting is lawful.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

FEBRUARY 3, 1999

Mr. ALLARD (for himself, Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire, Mr. HARKIN, Mr.

SANTORUM, Mr. MCCONNELL, Mr. KERRY, Mr. LEVIN, Mrs. BOXER, Ms.

COLLINS, Mr. KENNEDY, Mr. SCHUMER, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, Mrs. MURRAY,

Mr. LIEBERMAN, Mr. AKAKA, Mr. KYL, Mr. DURBIN, Mr. LAUTENBERG,

Mr. DEWINE, Mr. JEFFORDS, Mr. DODD, Mr. ABRAHAM, Mr. SARBANES,

Mr. REID, Mr. FITZGERALD, Mr. LEAHY, Mr. ROTH, Mr. WELLSTONE,

Mr. REED, Ms. SNOWE, Mr. KOHL, Mr. MOYNIHAN, Mr. FEINGOLD, Mr.

WYDEN, Mr. GRAMS, Mr. BYRD, Mr. TORRICELLI, Mr. LUGAR, Mr.

ROCKEFELLER, Mrs. MIKULSKI, Mr. DASCHLE, Mr. GRAHAM, Mr. WARNER, Mr. ROBB, Mr. INOUYE, Mr. BRYAN, Mr. GREGG, Mr. JOHNSON,

and Mr. EDWARDS) introduced the following bill; which was read twice

and referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry

MAY 17, 2000

Reported by Mr. LUGAR, without amendment

A BILL

To amend the Animal Welfare Act to remove the limitation

that permits interstate movement of live birds, for the

purpose of fighting, to States in which animal fighting

is lawful.
2

S 345 RS

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

3 SECTION 1. INTERSTATE MOVEMENT OF ANIMALS FOR ANI4 MAL FIGHTING.

5 Section 26 of the Animal Welfare Act (7 U.S.C.

6 2156) is amended—

7 (1) by striking subsection (d); and

8 (2) by redesignating subsections (e) through (h)

9 as subsections (d) through (g), respectively.

Calendar No. 555

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 345

[Report No. 106–297]

A BILL

To amend the Animal Welfare Act to remove the

limitation that permits interstate movement oflive birds, for the purpose of fighting, to Statesin which animal fighting is lawful.

MAY 17, 2000

Reported without amendment
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                     YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                          43,031
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   31,814
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,624
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                76,292
<PP&E>                                         101,944
<DEPRECIATION>                                  10,430
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 185,972
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           66,420
<BONDS>                                         30,271
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           548
<OTHER-SE>                                      88,733
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   185,972
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               152,520
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  122,664
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                60,273
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 3,048
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,804
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (31,893)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       961
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (32,854)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (32,854)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.87)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.87)


</TABLE>
Cite as 2016 Ark. 90

SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS 

No. CV-16-113

THERESA MARSHALL

APPELLANT

V.

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST 

CO.

APPELLEE

Opinion Delivered: March 3, 2016

PETITION FOR LEAVE TO 

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

PETITION DENIED WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE. 

PER CURIAM

On February 4, 2016, appellant Theresa Marshall, pro se, lodged a partial record with 

our clerk and filed a petition for leave to proceed in forma pauperis in her appeal. She also 

submitted an affidavit to support her assertion of indigency. We deny the petition without 

prejudice for two reasons. 

 First, the affidavit of indigency is incomplete. In a response, Marshall indicated that 

she was employed. However, in answering the question regarding the amount of her salary 

or the wages that she receives per month, she responded only that she earned $12 per hour. 

In addition, Marshall acknowledged that she has received money in the form of either 

pensions, annuities, or life-insurance payments, but she neglected to answer the question 

asking her to describe the source of the money and the amount she has received during the 

past twelve months. Without complete answers to these questions, this court is not able to 

determine whether she is indigent. 
Cite as 2016 Ark. 90

2 

Second, her petition is not complete. Rule 72(c) of the Arkansas Rules of Civil 

Procedure conditions the right to proceed in forma pauperis in civil matters upon, among 

other things, the court’s satisfaction that the alleged facts indicate a colorable cause of action. 

Boles v. Huckabee, 340 Ark. 410, 12 S.W.3d 201 (2000) (per curiam). A colorable cause of 

action is a claim that is legitimate and may reasonably be asserted given the facts presented 

and the current law or a reasonable and logical extension or modification of it. Brown v. 

Sachar, 2013 Ark. 319 (per curiam). Marshall has not demonstrated such a claim here. We 

note that, where no fundamental right is involved, filing fees do not violate due process. 

Stanley v. Coomer, 2014 Ark. 338, 439 S.W.3d 54 (per curiam); Partin v. Bar of Ark., 320 

Ark. 37, 894 S.W.2d 906 (1995). 

Based on these deficiencies, we must deny Marshall’s petition without prejudice. 

Petition denied without prejudice.
PA T McCRORY Governor N I C H O L AS 

### J. TENNYSON Transportation

December 7 , 2015 Federa l Aviat i on Ad m i n istration Attentio n : Director, Office of Airport Compl iance a n d Ma n agement Ana l ysis 800 Independence Avenue , SW Was hi ngton , DC 20591 Dear D i rector: Secretary

This letter i s i n respo n se to the letter from your office to Governor Pat McCrory, dated November 24, 2015, requesting an action plan to come into compliance w i th the FAA Policy and Procedures Concerning the Use of Airport Revenue; Proceeds From Taxes on Aviation Fuel Amendment, dated February 16, 1999. NC House B il l117 was passed September 30, 2015

. As a result of this bill, the State of North Ca r olina will be in comp li ance on January 1, 2016. Below is the applicable excerpt from this bill: "SECTION 4.1.(d) Part 8 of Article VofChapte r 105 of the General Statutes is amended by adding a new section to read: §105-164

. 44M

. Transfer to Divis i on of Av i ation

. The net proceeds of the tax co ll ected on aviat i on gasoline and j et fuel under G.S. 105-164.4 must be t r ansferred wit h in 75 days after the end of each fiscal year to the Highway Fund. This amount is annually appropriated from the Hi ghway Fund to the Div i sion of Av i at i on of the D epartment of Transportation for prior i tized capita l improvements to public airports and time-sensitive aviat i on capital imp r ove m ent projects for economic development purposes . " And the b ill continues: "SECT I ON 4.1.(t) Subsect i ons (a) through (d) of this section become effective Janua ry 1, 20 1 6, and apply to sales made on or after that date

. The remainder of this secti on is effective when this act becomes Jaw

. " Therefore, based on th is newly passed state l egislation, on January 1, 2016, North Carolina will be in compliance. Si n ce re l y , 

# I

# 1!:!fL.:**~E W~**  D irecto r , Divis io n of Av iation**~Not hin** **g Co** **mp es** **~** Sta t e o f Nonh Ca r olina 1 De p anm e nt ofTra n sponation J D i, isio n of**A'~a io** **n** 1050 Me ridian Drive,**Monis,~ ll** **,** NC 27560 I 1560 Mail**Scr\ ~ce**  Center, Raleigh, NC 27699· 1560 919 814 0550 T I 9 19 840 9267 F
#### Calvin Gore et al. v. Emanuel Kramer et al.

Chancery.—The court is of opinion that the demurrer to this bill brought by appellants in behalf of themselves and all other creditors of the firm of appellees was properly sustained.

Appeal from the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. Henry M. Shepard, Judge, presiding.

Opinion filed January 27, 1886.

Messrs. Weiglby, Bulkley & Gray, for appellants.

Mr. W. B. Cunningham, for appellees.

Per Curiam.

This was a bill brought by appellants in behalf of themselves and all other creditors of the firm of Kramer Bros. & Co., “for an administration,” (in the language of appellants’ brief) “ of the assets of said firm.” The bill is very voluminous and complex, no less than seven bills having been filed by as many different complainants, in addition to the bill of the original complainants. The bill is of a somewhat novel character in our chancery practice. It is not a creditor’s bill, none of the complainants having put their claims into judgment, nor is it a bill in the nature of a creditor’s bill, and after a very careful examination of its allegations we find ourselves at a loss to determine upon what precise theory cognizable in a court of chancery the complainants base their claim for equitable relief. Aside from this, we find no allegation in either of the bills that at the time of filing the same, any of the complainants were the owners or holders of the promissory notes executed by the defendants upon which the complainants based their claims, and which are the only evidence that complainants were creditors of the defendants at the time of the filing of the bills. The mere averment of the execution of commercial paper to' complainants several months prior to the *308filing of the hill is not sufficient, since such paper may have been negotiated and in the hands of *io?ia fide*holders long prior to the filing of the bill. Uor is there any sufficient allegation of the insolvency of the partnership firm. The allegation that *“*said defendant firm has no other property known to your orators out of which they can make their demands when due, save and except the said stock of goods and the unpaid amounts due said firm” is not an allegation of insolvency. Various other objections to the bill might be pointed out, but it is deemed unnecessary.

"Upon full consideration, we are of opinion that the de. murrer to the bill was properly sustained, and the decree of the court below dismissing the hill must therefore he affirmed.

Decree affirmed.
MEMORANDUM

DATE: 11/20/14

FROM: Ken Mitchell/EPA Region 4

TO: Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket Id: OAR–2013-0602

SUBJECT: Discussion of the Clean Power Plan at the Georgia Environmental Conference

SUMMARY: 

Region 4 provided information on the Clean Power Plan to participants at the Georgia 

Environmental Conference in Jekyll Island, Georgia, on August 21, 2014. The Clean Power Plan 

for Existing Power Plants was proposed on June 2, 2014. 

ATTENDEES:

EPA

Carol Kemker/EPA R4

Beverly Banister/EPA R4

External Stakeholders

Approximately 13 session participants

ATTACHMENT
United States Court of Appeals 

For the Seventh Circuit 

Chicago, Illinois 60604 

Submitted March 20, 2019*

Decided March 20, 2019 

Before 

DIANE P. WOOD, Chief Judge 

FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge 

AMY C. BARRETT, Circuit Judge

No. 18-2987 

GARY REGINALD DODGE, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

AUTHOR SOLUTIONS, LLC, 

 Defendant-Appellee.

 Appeal from the United States District 

Court for the Southern District 

of Indiana, Indianapolis Division. 

No. 1:18-cv-470-WTL-MJD 

William T. Lawrence, 

Judge. 

O R D E R 

 Gary Dodge, an author, brought a suit in 2014 in the Northern District of 

California against Author Solutions, LLC, for misconduct (“theft of royalties”) related to 

the publication of his book, Acts of War: Jesus/Alexander & JFK. The district court 

dismissed his complaint for failure to state a claim. Four years later, he sued Author 

Solutions in the Southern District of Indiana, alleging that it had not paid him the 

royalties it owed from online sales of his book. (He also sought the return of copies of 

the book from the National Archives.) The district court determined that claim 

 

*

 We have agreed to decide this case without oral argument because the appeal is 

frivolous. FED. R. CIV. P. 34(a)(2)(A). 

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION 

To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 
No. 18-2987 Page 2 

preclusion barred Dodge’s suit because his allegations stemmed from the same core of 

operative facts as his California suit, so it dismissed the complaint. 

On appeal, Dodge has not developed any challenge to the district court’s 

reasoning or cited any legal authority. Instead he tells us that $200 million is his “best 

estimate” for the royalties he is owed, complains that Author Solutions did not use 

certified mail to send him a check (supposedly for $116 million), and asks that he be 

granted “possession of all of Author Solution’s businesses.” We construe pro se filings 

liberally, Anderson v. Hardman, 241 F.3d 544, 545 (7th Cir. 2001), but we cannot find in 

Dodge’s appellate brief any discussion of the judge’s analysis or challenge to his 

decision. Even pro se litigants must comply with Federal Rule of Appellate 

Procedure 28(a)(8), see Anderson, 241 F.3d at 545–46, which requires that a brief contain a 

cogent argument with citations to authority. Although we “are generally disposed 

toward providing a litigant the benefit of appellate review,” id. at 545, we will not craft 

arguments or conduct legal research on behalf of a litigant. Because Dodge has not 

presented an argument, and because we see no obvious errors, the appeal is 

DISMISSED.
Exhibit 99.3

 

 

Certificate of Chief Financial Officer

Of

American Community Properties Trust

(pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350)

 

	I, Cynthia L. Hedrick, Chief Financial Officer of American Community Properties Trust, certify that, to the best of my knowledge, the Annual Report on Form 10-K of American Community Properties Trust for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2002, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (i) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and (ii) the information contained therein fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of American Community Properties Trust.

 

 

 

 

/s/ Cynthia L. Hedrick
Cynthia L. Hedrick
Chief Financial Officer
March 28, 2003

 

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to American Community Properties Trust and will be retained by American Community Properties Trust and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### The State of Iowa, Appellee, v. Philip Farrington, Appellant.

Appeal: notice : record.

*Appeal from Jones District Court.*— Hon. James D. Giffin, Judge.

Wednesday, February 10, 1892.

The defendant was convicted of the crime of forgery, and adjudged' to he imprisoned in the penitentiary at Anamosa for the term of three years.

Per Curiam.

This cause is submitted upon a transcript which does-not show the exidenee introduced on the trial. We have examined so much of the record as is contained in the transcript, but discover no error prejudicial to defendant. The charge to the jury, so far as we can ascertain in the absence of the evidence, appears to have been fair to the defendant. The transcript, however, fails to show that any notice of appeal has been served, and for that reason the cause is dismissed,
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A17A0990. SCOTTY R. WILSON v. THE STATE.

In March 2014, ScottyWilson pled guilty to the offenses of armed robbery and

hijacking a motor vehicle, and he was sentenced to 20 years, to serve 10 in prison. In

April 2016, Wilson filed a motion to modify a void sentence and conviction. The trial

court denied the motion, and Wilson filed a notice of appeal directed to the Supreme

Court, which transferred it to this Court after finding that Supreme Court jurisdiction

was not invoked. We also lack jurisdiction.

Under OCGA § 17-10-1 (f), a court may modify a sentence during the year

after its imposition or within 120 days after remittitur following a direct appeal,

whichever is later. Frazier v. State, 302 Ga. App. 346, 347-348 (691 SE2d 247)

(2010); Burg v. State, 297 Ga. App. 118, 118 (676 SE2d 465) (2009). Once this

statutory period expires, as it has here, a trial court may modify a sentence only if it

is void. Jones v. State, 278 Ga. 669, 670 (604 SE2d 483) (2004). “Motions to vacate

a void sentence generally are limited to claimsthat – even assuming the existence and

validity of the conviction for which the sentence was imposed – the law does not

authorize thatsentence, most typically because it exceedsthe mostsevere punishment

for which the applicable penal statute provides.” von Thomas v. State, 293 Ga. 569,

572 (2) (748 SE2d 446) (2013). Accordingly, when a sentence is within the statutory

range of punishment, it is not void. Jones, supra.

Here, Wilson does not argue that his sentence exceeded the statutory range of

punishment; rather, he claims, among other arguments, that he should have been tried

in juvenile court, that he received ineffective assistance of counsel, and that he was

selectively prosecuted. These are challengesto the procedures employed and validity

February 23, 2017
of his convictions, not his sentence. The Supreme Court has made it clear that a postconviction motion to vacate an allegedly void criminal conviction is not one of the

established procedures for challenging the validity of a judgment in a criminal case,

and an appeal from the trial court’s ruling on such a petition should be dismissed. 

See Roberts v. State, 286 Ga. 532 (690 SE2d 150) (2010). Because Wilson is not

authorized to collaterally attack his conviction in this manner, this appeal is subject

to dismissal. See Harper v. State, 286 Ga. 216, 218 (1) (686 SE2d 786) (2009);

Matherlee v. State, 303 Ga. App. 765, 766 (694 SE2d 665) (2010). 

For these reasons, we lack jurisdiction over this appeal, which is hereby

DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

02/23/2017
#### Katzer, Appellant, vs. The Milwaukee Electric Railway & Transport Company, Respondent.

For the appellant: *Mitchell Melnik*and *Gold & McCann,*all of Milwaukee.

*666For the respondent: *Shaw, Muskat & Paulsen*of Milwaukee.

*By the Court.*

Judgment affirmed.
EXHIBIT32.2

 

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO

18U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of FoneFriend, Inc. (the"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2004, as filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the"Report"), I, Edward N. Jones, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

-  The    Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the    Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and The    information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material    respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 

/s/James A. Trodden                                     

JamesA. Trodden

InterimChief Financial Officer

August23, 2004
#### STATE *v.*CALVIN CRESS.

Where a penal act, upon which an indictment is founded, is repealed during the pendency of the indictment, the defendant is entitled to an acquital.

*422This was an ikdiotmeNt, tried before bis Honor, Judge Dick, at the Spring Term, 1857, of Rowan Superior Court.

The charge was for selling spirituous liquors by a measure less than fire gallons, against a statute regulating the town of Salisbury.

The jury found a special verdict to the effect that, on the 1st day of November, 1856, in the town of Salisbury, in the County of Rowan, the defendant did sell spirituous liquor by a measure less than five gallons, to wit, by one quart, not having then and there a license to do so from the board of commissioners or the said town; they further found that the Act of Assembly creating the offence had been repealed after the finding of the bill of indictment.

Upon this verdict the solicitor moved for judgment, which being refused by .the Court, he appealed to this Court.

*Attorney*General, for the State.

Boyden, for defendant.

Nash, C. J.

The defendant is indicted for selling spirituous liquors in the town of Salisbnry, by a less measure than five gallons. The private act, under which the indictment was drawn, was passed at the session of the Legislature held in 1818, whereby it was forbidden to any one to sell spirituous liquors within the corporate limits of the town of Salisbury, without a license therefor from the commissioners. The indictment here, was found at the Eall Term, 1856, of tho Superior Court of Rowan County. Since the finding of the indictment, the act of 1848, under which it was found, has been repealed. His Honor held that the indictment could not be sustained. In this we concur. The foundation on which the indictment rested being removed, the indictment must necessary fall to the ground. See *Gov*v. Howard, 1 Murp. Rep. 465.

Pee CubiaM. There is no error. Judgment affirmed.