alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Martin, Michael (OST) QO' ~ CSV- ^004 - \C\L, '^ ^ 

From: Martin, Michael (OST) 

Sent: Monday, January 24, 2011 11:24 AM 

To: 'ofe@Mayaguezpr.gov' 

Cc: 'Cape Air, Andrew Bonney'; 'kvogler@seaborneairlines.com'; 'Air Sunsliine, Inc.'; Devany, 

Dennis (OST); 'Jerry.Garcia@CapeAir.com'; 'Richard Stanton (rstanton@prfaa.com)' 

Subject: EAS air carrier proposals at Mayaguez, PR 

Attachments: Air Sunshine Mayaguez 2011 proposal.pdf; Cape Air Mayaguez EAS proposal v21 JAN11 .pdf; 

Seaborne Airlines for Mayaguez 2011 .pdf 

Everyone: 

I would like to update you on the essential air service (EAS) situation at Mayaguez, and give you an opportunity to offer 

any comments on the record before we submit a recommendation to the Assistant Secretary for Aviation and 

International Affairs, The current EAS contract at your community expires April 30, 2011, and in anticipation of that, we 

issued Order 2010-12-31, December 23, 2010, soliciting proposals from carriers interested in providing subsidized EAS 

for a new, two-year period, beginning May 1, 2011. In response to our request, three airlines submitted proposals: Air 

Sunshine, Cape Air, and Seaborne Airlines. I have attached each carrier's proposal for your review. 

We request that you review the proposals and submit any comments you may have soon as possible, but no later than 

Thursdav. February 17. Please send your comments via e-mail to EAS@dot.gov. If you have any questions, feel free to 

contact me. 

Regards, ;;;:; 

>' O 

Michael Martin —' 

United States Department of Transportation ~Q 

Office of Aviation Ana lysis ^ 

Essential Air Service (EAS) and Small Community Air Service Development Program (SCASDP) " 

(202) 366-6494 en "^
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-20159

Conference Calendar

 

JOHN THOMAS BAGLEY,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

GARY L. JOHNSON, Director,

Texas Department of Criminal Justice,

Institutional Division,

Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-96-CV-878

- - - - - - - - - -

February 10, 1998

Before SMITH, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

 Texas prisoner John Thomas Bagley, No. 652853, is BARRED from

proceeding in forma pauperis (IFP) under the Prison Litigation

Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA) because, on at least three prior

occasions while incarcerated, Bagley has brought an action or

appeal in a United States court that was dismissed as frivolous. 

See Bagley v. Johnson, No. 97-20667 (5th Cir. Dec. 9, 1997); 28

U.S.C. § 1915(g); Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 388 (5th

Cir. 1996). Accordingly, Bagley’s IFP status is DECERTIFIED, and
No. 97-20159

-2-

he may not proceed IFP in any civil action or appeal filed while

he is in prison unless he is under imminent danger of serious

physical injury. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(g). The appeal is DISMISSED. 

 Bagley has 15 days from the date of this opinion to pay the

full appellate filing fee of $105 to the clerk of the district

court, should he wish to reinstate his appeal. 

 IFP DECERTIFIED; APPEAL DISMISSED.
III 

114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. RES. 571 

Providing official recognition of the massacre of 11 African-American soldiers 

of the 333rd Field Artillery Battalion of the United States Army who 

had been captured near Wereth, Belgium, during the Battle of the 

Bulge on December 17, 1944. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 19, 2016 

Mr. MANCHIN submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on Foreign Relations 

RESOLUTION 

Providing official recognition of the massacre of 11 AfricanAmerican soldiers of the 333rd Field Artillery Battalion 

of the United States Army who had been captured near 

Wereth, Belgium, during the Battle of the Bulge on 

December 17, 1944. 

Whereas, during the Battle of the Bulge in Belgium in December 1944, elements of the 333rd Field Artillery Battalion, an African-American unit, were among the units 

of the United States Army overrun in the initial German 

attack; 

Whereas 11 soldiers from different batteries of the 333rd 

Field Artillery Battalion attempted to escape capture and 

return to the lines of the United States; 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•SRES 571 IS 

Whereas the 11 soldiers were Curtis Adams of South Carolina, Mager Bradley of Mississippi, George Davis, Jr., of 

Alabama, Thomas Forte of Mississippi, Robert Green of 

Georgia, James Leatherwood of Mississippi, Nathaniel 

Moss of Texas, George Motten of Texas, William 

Pritchett of Alabama, James Stewart of West Virginia, 

and Due Turner of Arkansas; 

Whereas the 11 soldiers were captured by a German patrol 

composed of SS soldiers, who, after dark, marched the 

unarmed soldiers to a nearby field and massacred them; 

Whereas the massacre of the 11 African-American soldiers of 

the 333rd Field Artillery Battalion in Wereth remains 

unknown to the vast majority of the people of the United 

States; and 

Whereas, in 2004, a permanent monument was dedicated in 

Wereth to the 11 African-American soldiers of the 333rd 

Field Artillery Battalion who lost their lives in Wereth 

during the Battle of the Bulge in an effort to defeat fascism and defend freedom: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate officially recognizes the 

2 dedicated service and ultimate sacrifice on behalf of the 

3 United States of the 11 African-American soldiers of the 

4 333rd Field Artillery Battalion of the United States Army 

5 who were massacred in Wereth, Belgium, during the Bat6 tle of the Bulge on December 17, 1944. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

IN THE INTEREST

OF J.A.N., A CHILD §

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 17

- 00066

- CV

Appeal from the

388th District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 201 5 DCM 5440)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes the Appellant is entitled

to a new trial. We therefore reverse the judgment of the trial court below signed on February 17,

2017, and remand the cause for new trial, in accordance with this C ourt’s opinion. It is further

ordered that each party bear their own costs. This decision shall be certified below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 31ST DAY OF JULY, 2018.

YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Palafox, JJ.
establishment_name,ein,company_name,street_address,city,state,zip,naics_code,industry_description,size,establishment_type,year_filing_for,annual_average_employees,total_hours_worked,no_injuries_illnesses,total_deaths,total_dafw_cases,total_djtr_cases,total_other_cases,total_dafw_days,total_djtr_days,total_injuries,total_skin_disorders,total_respiratory_conditions,total_poisonings,total_hearing_loss,total_other_illnesses,change_reason
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Kurtis T. Wilder

Elizabeth T. Clement, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 March 7, 2018 p0228

Order 

Clerk

March 7, 2018

156688

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 156688

COA: 331462

Oakland CC: 2015-255591-FH

CHARLES WILLIAM WOOD,

Defendant-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 19, 2017 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered. We DIRECT counsel for the defendant 

to answer the application for leave to appeal within 28 days after the date of this order.

The application for leave to appeal remains pending.
<Page>

                       Consent of Independent Accountants

We hereby consent to the use in the Prospectus incorporated by reference in
this Post-Effective Amendment No. 9 to the registration statement (Form N-4
No. 33-63935) (the "Registration Statement") of our report dated February 15,
2001, relating to the financial statements of Fortis Benefits Insurance
Company, which appears in such Prospectus. We also consent to the use in the
Statement of Additional Information incorporated by reference in this
Registration Statement of our report dated April 6, 2001, relating to the
financial statements of Fortis Benefits Insurance Company Variable Account D,
which appears in such Statement of Additional Information. We also consent to
the reference to us under the heading "Experts" in such Statement of
Additional Information.

/s/  PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP
Minneapolis, Minnesota
October 25, 2001
EXHIBIT
10.2

     

    June 17,
2010

     

    Robert
Kelly, President

    Atossa
Genetics, Inc.

    4105 E
Madison St, Suite 320

    Seattle,
WA  98112

    


    OBJECT:  TERMINATION
OF EXCLUSIVE PATENT LICENSE AGREEMENT

      
        

      

    

     

    Dear
Robert,

    


    With this
letter, we hereby terminate the Exclusive Patent License Agreement between
Ensisheim Partners LLC (“Ensisheim”) and Atossa Genetics, Inc. (“Atossa”) dated
July 27, 2009.  The reason for this termination is that we have agreed
that an assignment of all patent rights rather than a license is a better
business arrangement.

    


    Upon
acceptance of this letter, Atossa will have no further obligation with respect
to royalty payments to Ensisheim.  Any accrued but unpaid royalties
are immediately forgiven.  Upon assignment, Atossa will have all
responsibility for prosecution, maintenance, and enforcement and will indemnify
Ensisheim from any and all claims against the patent
estate.  Ensisheim will retain no residual rights with respect to the
patents and patent applications.

    


    Thank you
for your immediate attention to this matter.

    


    Sincerely

    


    
      	
              STEVEN
      C. QUAY, M.D., PH.D.

            	 
      
	 
      	 
      
	
              /s/  Steven C.
    Quay

            	 
      
	 
      	 
      
	
              Chairman
      and CEO

            	 
      
	
              Atossa
      Genetics, Inc.

            	 
      
	
              4105
      E. Madison St, Suite 320

            	 
      
	
              Seattle,
      WA  98112

            	 
      
	 
      	 
      
	
              Accepted
      on behalf of Atossa Genetics, Inc.

            	 
      
	 
      	 
      
	
              /s/ Robert Kelly

            	 
      
	
              Robert
      Kelly, President
```

[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 177 (Thursday, November 20, 2008)]
[House]
[Page H10847]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                              THE JOURNAL

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair has examined the Journal of the 
last day's proceedings and announces to the House his approval thereof.
  Pursuant to clause 1, rule I, the Journal stands approved.

                          ____________________
```
EXHIBIT
32.2


CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 USC, SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906


OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Renhuang Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended April 30, 2008, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof (the
“Report”), I, Zuoliang Wang, Interim Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





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





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





Dated:
      January 12, 2010
              /s/ Zuoliang WangBy:
      Zuoliang WangIts:
      Interim Chief Financial
Officer
Exhibit 10.1


 


TERMINATION OF TOLLING AND STANDSTILL AGREEMENT


 


THIS
TERMINATION OF TOLLING AND STANDSTILL AGREEMENT (this “Termination Agreement”) is made and
entered into by Overstock.com, Inc. (“Overstock”)
and the Overstock.com, Inc. Employee Benefits Committee (the “Committee”), on behalf of the
Overstock.com, Inc. 401(k) Plan (the “Plan”),
on and to be effective as of October 14, 2010.


 


WHEREAS,
on August 31, 2009 Overstock and the Committee entered into a Tolling and
Standstill Agreement (the “Agreement”)
for the benefit of certain participants in the Plan who acquired shares of
Overstock Common Stock in Plan accounts between July 1, 2008 and June 30,
2009; and


 


WHEREAS,
Overstock has completed a registered rescission offer to such participants in
the Plan as contemplated by Section 1 of the Agreement; and


 


WHEREAS,
the Committee serves as the Administrator of the Plan, and is authorized to
take such actions with respect to the Plan as may be deemed necessary or
appropriate by the Committee; and


 


WHEREAS,
the Committee, on behalf of the Plan, and Overstock (the “Parties”) believe that the Agreement has
served the purpose for which it was intended, and desire to terminate the
Agreement; and


 


WHEREAS,
each of the Parties has the right, pursuant to Section 2 of the Agreement,
to terminate the Agreement unilaterally as set forth therein, but each desires
instead to terminate the Agreement by mutual agreement as set forth herein;


 


NOW
THEREFORE, the Parties agree as follows:


 


1. Termination
of Agreement. The Parties hereby mutually agree to terminate the Agreement,
effective as of October 14, 2010.


 


2. Filing
of Termination Agreement. Overstock does not consider either the Agreement
or this Termination Agreement to be a material contract that would require filing
under Item 1.01 of Form 8-K or otherwise. 
However, Overstock filed the Agreement as an exhibit to an Item 8.01 Form 8-K
on August 31, 2009, and intends to file this Termination as an exhibit to
a similar Form 8-K or otherwise.


 

















 


Executed on the date first written
above.


 


OVERSTOCK.COM, INC.


 


	
  By:

  	
  /s/
  Patrick M. Byrne

  	
   

  
	
  Name:
  

  	
  Patrick
  M. Byrne

  	
   

  
	
  Title:

  	
  Chief
  Executive Officer

  	
   

  



 


 


OVERSTOCK.COM. INC. 401(K) PLAN 

By: Overstock.com, Inc. Employee Benefits Committee


 


	
  By:

  	
  /s/
  Jonathan E. Johnson III

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Jonathan
  E. Johnson III

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Committee
  Member

  	
   

  



 


2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS 

No. 17-1176V 

 Filed: June 26, 2018 

UNPUBLISHED 

JENNIFER CLAYPOOL, 

 Petitioner, 

v. 

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES, 

 Respondent. 

Special Processing Unit (SPU); 

Ruling on Entitlement; Concession; 

Causation-In-Fact; Tetanus 

Diphtheria acellular Pertussis (Tdap) 

Vaccine; Shoulder Injury Related to 

Vaccine Administration (SIRVA) 

   

Joseph Alexander Vuckovich, Maglio Christopher & Toale, PA, Washington, DC, for 

petitioner. 

Daniel Anthony Principato, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for 

respondent. 

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1

Dorsey, Chief Special Master: 

 On June 22, 2018, petitioner filed a petition for compensation under the National 

Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.,

2 (the “Vaccine 

Act”). Petitioner alleges that she received a Tetanus diphtheria acellular pertussis 

(“Tdap”) vaccination on June 22, 2016, and thereafter suffered from a left shoulder 

injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”). Petition at 1. The case was 

assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters. 

                                                            

1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the 

undersigned intends to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, in accordance with 

the E-Government Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of 

Electronic Government Services). In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), petitioner has 14 days to 

identify and move to redact medical or other information, the disclosure of which would constitute an 

unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, the undersigned agrees that the identified material fits 

within this definition, the undersigned will redact such material from public access. 

2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for 

ease of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 

300aa (2012). 
On June 22, 2018, respondent filed his Rule 4(c) report in which he concedes 

that petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report 

at 1. Specifically, respondent has concluded that a preponderance of evidence 

stablishes that petitioner’s injury was caused-in-fact by the administration of the Tdap 

vaccine on June 22, 2016. Id. at 3. Respondent further agrees that petitioner has 

satisfied all legal prerequisites for compensation under the Vaccine Act. Id. at 5. 

 In view of respondent’s position and the evidence of record, the 

undersigned finds that petitioner is entitled to compensation. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 s/Nora Beth Dorsey 

 Nora Beth Dorsey 

 Chief Special Master
* 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. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED August 3, 2005 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-60850 Summary Calendar

ALLAUDDIN SULTAN FATTU Petitioner

v. ALBERTO R GONZALES, US ATTORNEY GENERAL Respondent

-------------------- Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A77 533 669

-------------------- Before KING, Chief Judge, and SMITH and GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Allauddin Sultan Fattu, a native and citizen of Pakistan, petitions for review of the order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) adopting and affirming, and dismissing Fattu’s appeal of, the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for withholding of removal, filed pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3). Because the BIA adopted the IJ’s decision, the IJ’s decision is the final agency determination for judicial review.No. 04-60065 -2- See Mikhael v. INS , 115 F.3d 299, 302 (5th Cir. 1997). We will uphold the finding that an alien is not eligible for withholding of removal if that finding is supported by substantial evidence.
See Chun v. INS , 40 F.3d 76, 78 (5th Cir. 1994). The substantial evidence standard requires that the IJ’s decision be based on the record evidence and that the decision be substantially reasonable. Carbajal-Gonzalez v. INS , 78 F.3d 194, 197 (5th Cir. 1996). Under this standard, the IJ’s determination will be affirmed unless the “evidence compels a contrary conclusion.” Id. At his hearing before the IJ, Fattu asserted that several years after he left Pakistan, political opponents of his father threw stones at the family home and business several times, forcing his parents to leave the country as well. The IJ determined that these alleged actions were a “far cry” from “persecution.” After reviewing the record and the briefs, we conclude that the IJ’s decision is supported by substantial evidence and that the record evidence does not compel a contrary conclusion. See Carbajal-Gonzalez , 78 F.3d at 197. Fattu’s allegations do not even rise to the level of other types of mistreatment that we have held not to qualify as persecution.
See , e.g. , Abdel-Masieh v. INS , 73 F.3d 579, 584 (5th Cir. 1996); Ozdemir v. INS , 46 F.3d 6, 7 (5th Cir. 1994). The petition for review is DENIED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
UNAUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE SECOND QUARTER OF FISCAL 1997 CONTAINED
IN THE COMPANY'S REPORT ON FORM 10-QSB AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-25-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-27-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-27-1997
<CASH>                                       1,565,412
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,804,373
<ALLOWANCES>                                   350,000
<INVENTORY>                                  1,398,597
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             6,800,168
<PP&E>                                       2,875,477
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,953,244
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              11,511,824
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,719,750
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       257,145
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,758,331
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                11,511,824
<SALES>                                      4,291,935
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            10,427,291
<CGS>                                        3,272,722
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                5,351,213
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             4,156,636
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                60,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              41,066
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                948,909
<INCOME-TAX>                                   399,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            549,909
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   549,909
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .20
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .20
        


</TABLE>