alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
In The Matter Of: 

### SERVED: July 27, 2016
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS WASHINGTON, DC

DocketNo. FAA-2016-4268 Peter Hantz Company ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 201280700041 Respondent
PREHEARING CONFERENCE REPORT
On July 26, 2016, the undersignedjudge held a prehearing conference inthe above captioned
case. Counsel for the Complainant and Respondent attended the conference telephonically to discuss the following: 

### 1. Discovery The parties agreed to complete discovery by December 30, 2016. 2. PendingMotions The parties agreed there are no pending motions currently awaiting decision in this case. 3. Litigation Schedule The parties agreed to a litigation schedule that will be published in a separate order. 4. Substantive Issues
a. The Complainant stated that reference to the Respondent inthe complaint as "UPS"
was a mistake; suchreference was meant to be to "Peter Hantz Company." b. The Complainant alleges Respondent is in the sanction range for a "business entity that uses orhandles Hazmat in the course ofbusiness" in determining the appropriate sanction range for each alleged violation. 1 The Complainant will provide evidence at the hearing in support ofthis allegation.
c. The Respondent reserves the right to file a dispositive motion that, pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 13.16(b)(3), the United States district courts have exclusivejurisdiction over

1See Department ofTransportation, FAA OrderNo. 2150.3B, Figure 3-B; see alsoAtlas Frontiers, LLC, FAA OrderNo. 2010-10 at 6 (June 16, 2010) (describing the sanction range for entities that handle Hazmat in the course ofbusiness).this case. The Complainant stated that 

### it is the FAA'spositionthat this regulation does not apply to allegedhazard materials violations. 

### 5. Settlement The undersignedjudge encouraged the parties to continue to discuss possible settlement.

# ~-- ;UGLAS M. RA WALD
- Administrative LawJudge
Attachment: Service ListSERVICE LIST - BY U.S. MAIL ORIGINAL & ONE COPY Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W10002

ONE COPY
Timothy I. McCulloch, Respondent's Counsel HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP 2375 E. CamelbackRd. Suite 750 Phoenix, AZ 85016 TEL: 602-631-4400 FAX: 602-631-4404 Ryan Landers, Complainant's Counsel Enforcement Division, Southern Team Federal AviationAdministration, Southern Region 1701 ColumbiaAvenue College Park, GA 30337 TEL: 404-305-5200 FAX: 404-305-5223 The Honorable Douglas M. Rawald,Administrative LawJudge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 NewJersey Avenue, S.E. (£11-310) Washington, DC 20590 TEL: 202-366-5121 StaffAssistant FAX: 202-366-7536 DocketNo. FAA-2016-4268 (Civil Penalty Action)

2 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person orby expedited courier, use the following address: Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2WIOOO, Washington, DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 185 (Wednesday, December 10, 2008)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E2354]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                           HONORING KYLE BUCK

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. SAM GRAVES

                              of missouri

                    in the house of representatives

                      Wednesday, December 10, 2008

  Mr. GRAVES. Madam Speaker, I proudly pause to recognize Kyle Buck of 
Kansas City, Missouri. Kyle is a very special young man who has 
exemplified the finest qualities of citizenship and leadership by 
taking an active part in the Boy Scouts of America, Troop 1395, and 
earning the most prestigious award of Eagle Scout.
  Kyle has been very active with his troop, participating in many Scout 
activities. Over the many years Kyle has been involved with Scouting, 
he has not only earned numerous merit badges, but also the respect of 
his family, peers, and community.
  Madam Speaker, I proudly ask you to join me in commending Kyle Buck 
for his accomplishments with the Boy Scouts of America and for his 
efforts put forth in achieving the highest distinction of Eagle Scout.

                          ____________________
```
Order entered January 22, 2015

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05 - 13 - 01486 - CR No. 05 - 13 - 01487 - CR KENNETH RAY TURNER, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 1

Dallas Co unty, Texas Trial C ourt Cause No. F 13 - 51238 - H & F13 - 51239 - H



### O RDER Before the Court is appellant’s January 16, 2015, motion for extension of time to file his motion for en banc reconsideration

. We GRANT appellant’s motion and consider his motion for en ba nc reconsideration received on January 16, 2015, properly before the Court.

/s/ CAROLYN WRIGHT CHIEF JUSTICE
Exhibit
31.2
 **CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**
 
 I, David
A. Owen, certify that:
 
 1.
    I
      have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of The Alpine
      Group, Inc.;
 
 2.
    Based
      on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
      material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the
      statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
      were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this
      report;
 
 3.
    Based
      on my knowledge, the consolidated financial statements, and other
      financial information included in this report, fairly present in all
      material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash
      flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
      report;
 
 4.
    The
      registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for
      establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as
      defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the
      registrant and have:
 
 (a)
    designed
      such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure and
      procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
      information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
      subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
      particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;
 
 (b)
    evaluated
      the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures
      and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of
      the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period
      covered by this report based on such evaluation;
and
 
 (c)
    disclosed
      in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over
      financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent
      fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an
      annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
      materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial
      reporting; and
  5.
    The
      registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on
      our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting,
      to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's
      board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
 
 (a)
    all
      significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
      operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
      reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record,
      process, summarize and report financial information; and
 
 (b)
    any
      fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
      employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control
      over financial reporting.
 
 Date:
March 31, 2005
 
 /s/
      David A. OwenDavid
      A. Owen
      Chief
      Financial Officer
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

# DATES:

*Date of required notice:*                         November 21, 2024.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on November 15, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage® Contract 735 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2025-421, K2025-419.                

Sean C. Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2024-27238 Filed 11-20-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
**EXHIBIT 23**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 033-05913, 033-53381,033-27372, 333-40715, 333-55588, 333-113039, 333-113040, 333-129010, 333-143743, 333-149007, and 333-164735) of Analogic Corporation of our report dated September 23, 2010 relating to the financial statements, financial statement schedule, andthe effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which appears in this Form 10-K. 

/s/PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP 

Boston, Massachusetts 

September 23, 2010
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 13-2191

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

David Evan Starr

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________

 Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Iowa - Cedar Rapids

____________

 Submitted: February 26, 2015

Filed: March 11, 2015

[Unpublished]

____________

Before SMITH, BOWMAN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

David Evan Starr appeals from the amended judgment that the District

Court entered in his criminal case following the grant of relief on one of the claims

1

The Honorable Linda R. Reade, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

1

the Northern District of Iowa.
he raised in his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceeding. Initially, we conclude that the appeal

is timely, as the District Court extended the time to file a notice of appeal, having

found excusable neglect or good cause for Starr’s delay in filing his notice. See Fed.

R. App. P. 4(b)(4).

After careful review, we find no error in the decision to vacate Starr’s

convictions on two of the possession-of-child-pornography counts. The court

instructed the jury at Starr’s trial to consider each count separately and return separate

verdicts, and the evidence as to the receipt counts and the non-multiplicitous

possession counts wasstrong. See United States v. Emly, 747 F.3d 974, 980 (8th Cir.

2014) (holding that a multiplicitous indictment did not require remand for a new trial

where the multiplicity did not prejudice the defendant). The court’s decision to

vacate the possession convictions and leave the receipt convictions intact was

supported by the evidence and the jury’s verdict. See United States v. Muhlenbruch,

682 F.3d 1096, 1100–01 (8th Cir. 2012) (holding that the district court did not abuse

its discretion by vacating a lesser-included possession conviction, rather than a

receipt conviction, because the decision was “based on the jury’s verdict and the

evidence introduced at trial”). Further, the court did not err in denying a resentencing

hearing. Two of Starr’s possession convictions—and the 120-month concurrent

sentences originally imposed on those convictions—are still valid, and the court made

clear at the original sentencing and in the § 2255 proceeding its intent to impose a

720-month total sentence . See United States v. Harrison, 113 F.3d 135, 137 (8th Cir.

1997) (stating that § 2255 “gives district courts broad and flexible remedial authority

to resentence a defendant and to correct the sentence as appropriate”); James v.

United States, 476 F.2d 936, 937 (8th Cir. 1973) (per curiam) (“[T]he critical issue

is whether the sentence imposed [on the valid count] might have been different if the

sentencing judge had known at time of the sentencing that . . . conviction [on another

count] was invalid.”).

We affirm the judgment of the District Court.

______________________________

-2-
Name
    
    Jurisdiction of OrganizationAllis-Chalmers Drilling LLC
    
    DelawareAllis-Chalmers Holdings Inc.
    
    DelawareAllis-Chalmers Management LLC
    
    TexasAllis-Chalmers Production Services LLC
    
    TexasAllis-Chalmers Rental Services LLC
    
    TexasAllis-Chalmers Tubular Services LLC
    
    TexasAirComp LLC
    
    DelawareBCH Energy do Brasil Serviços de Petróleo Ltda
    
    BrazilBCH Ltd.
    
    AlbertaDLS Argentina Limited
    
    British Virgin IslandsDLS Drilling, Logistics and Services Company
    
    British Virgin IslandsPetro-Rentals LLC
    
    LouisianaRebel Rentals LLC
    
    LouisianaStrata Directional Technology LLC
    
    TexasTanus Argentina S.A.
    
    Argentina
IIA 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 40 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 2, 2017 

Received 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of 

title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by 

the Social Security Administration relating to Implementation of the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 

2007. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

HJ 40 RDS 

1 That Congress disapproves the rule submitted by the So2 cial Security Administration relating to Implementation of 

3 the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 (pub4 lished at 81 Fed. Reg. 91702 (December 19, 2016)), and 

5 such rule shall have no force or effect. 

Passed the House of Representatives February 2, 

2017. 

Attest: KAREN L. HAAS, 

Clerk. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Leticia Gonzales Venegas, * From the 161st District

 Court of Ector County,

 Trial Court No. B-37,032.

Vs. No. 11-13-00103-CR * March 12, 2015

The State of Texas, * Memorandum Opinion by Bailey, J.

 (Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

 Willson, J., and Bailey, J.)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there 

is no error in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this court’s 

opinion, the judgment of the trial court is in all things affirmed.
### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-11-00509- CR

Juan L eandro Villarreal, Appellant

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F CO MAL CO UNTY, 207 TH JUDICI AL DISTRICT NO. CR2010 -29 5, TH E H ONO RAB LE JACK H . RO B ISO N, JUDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
Appella n t J u an L eandr o Villarre al pleade d g uilty and judicially confe ssed to the offe nse of ag g rava ted robber y . See Tex. Penal C o d e An n. § 29.03 (West 2011). I n addition, Villarre al pleade d true to an enhanc ement para g raph alleg ing a prior felony conviction for attempted murder, there by incre asing the punishment r ang e under the repe at offe nder provisions of the penal code. See id. § 12.42(c) (1) (West 2011) (providing that at trial of first deg ree fe l o n y o ff en s e, defe ndant shall be punished by imprisonment for life or any term not more than 99 y ear s or less than 15 y ear s upon proof of previous felony conviction). Following a hearing on punishment, the t rial court adjudicate d Villarre al g uilt y , made an aff irmative deadly -we apon finding , and assessed Villarre al’s punishment at confine ment for life in the I nstitut ional Division of the Texas Depa rtment of Criminal J ustice. See id.Villarre al’s court-a ppointed attorney has filed a motion to withdraw supported by a brief concluding that the appea l is frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the require ments of Anders v. Calif

ornia by prese nting a profe ssional evalua tion of the rec ord demonstrating why there
are no arg

uable g rounds to be advanc ed
. See Anders v. Calif ornia , 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967); Garner v. State , 300 S.W .3d 763, 766 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009); see also Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75 (1988). Villarre al rec eived a copy of counsel’s brief and was advised of his rig ht to examine the appellate rec ord and to file a pro se brief. See Anders , 386 U.S. a t 744; Garner , 300 S.W .3d at 766. No pro se brief or

other wr itten response ha s been f iled. We have revie wed the rec ord, including appellate counsel’s brief, and find no
reve rsible err or. See Anders , 38 6 U. S
. at 744; Garner , 300 S.W .3d at 766; Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W .3d 824, 826-27 (Te x . Crim. App. 2005). We ag ree with counsel that the re cord pr esents
no arg uably meritorious g rounds for revie w and t h e ap p ea l is frivolous. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is g rante d. The judg ment of convic tion is affirmed.

__________________________________________ J . Woodfin J ones, Chief Just ice Be fore Chief J ustice Jones, J ustices Pemberton a nd Rose Affir med Filed: May

9, 2012 Do Not Publish

2
```

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 220 (Thursday, November 14, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 90084]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-26380]

[[Page 90084]]

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

POSTAL SERVICE

Product Change--Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail, and USPS 
Ground Advantage[supreg] Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal ServiceTM.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Date of required notice: November 14, 2024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
November 1, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS 
Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground 
Advantage[supreg] Contract 620 to Competitive Product List. Documents 
are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2025-266, K2025-264.

Sean C. Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2024-26380 Filed 11-13-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
```
BILL OF COSTS

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, FOURTEENTH DISTRICT, AT HOUSTON

No. 14-12-00118-CV

Gastar Exploration LTD

v.

U. S. Speciality Insurance Co. and Axis Insurance Co.

(No. 2010-11236 IN 190TH DISTRICT COURT OF HARRIS COUNTY)

TYPE OF FEE CHARGES PAID/DUE STATUS PAID BY

E-TXGOV FEE

E-TXGOV FEE

E-TXGOV FEE

MT FEE

E-TXGOV FEE

MT FEE

E-TXGOV FEE

E-TXGOV FEE

E-TXGOV FEE

E-TXGOV FEE

E-TXGOV FEE

E-TXGOV FEE

E-TXGOV FEE

MT FEE

E-TXGOV FEE

MT FEE

MT FEE

E-TXGOV FEE

E-TXGOV FEE

MT FEE

E-TXGOV FEE

$5.00

$5.00

$5.00

$10.00

$5.00

$15.00

$5.00

$5.00

$5.00

$5.00

$5.00

$5.00

$5.00

$10.00

$4.00

$10.00

$10.00

$4.00

$4.00

$10.00

$4.00

11/13/2013

11/04/2013

10/18/2013

09/06/2013

09/06/2013

08/30/2013

08/30/2013

07/26/2013

07/09/2013

12/05/2012

11/27/2012

10/08/2012

09/11/2012

09/11/2012

08/29/2012

08/08/2012

08/08/2012

08/08/2012

08/08/2012

07/23/2012

07/23/2012

E-PAID

E-PAID

E-PAID

E-PAID

E-PAID

E-PAID

E-PAID

E-PAID

E-PAID

E-PAID

E-PAID

E-PAID

E-PAID

E-PAID

E-PAID

E-PAID

E-PAID

E-PAID

E-PAID

E-PAID

E-PAID

ANT

ANT

ANT

ANT

ANT

APE

APE

APE

APE

APE

ANT

ANT

ANT

ANT

APE

APE

APE

APE

APE

APE

APE
MT FEE

E-TXGOV FEE

E-TXGOV FEE

MT FEE

E-TXGOV FEE

MT FEE

MT FEE

E-TXGOV FEE

E-TXGOV FEE

CLK RECORD

E-TXGOV FEE

REPORTER'S RECORD

E-TXGOV FEE

E-TXGOV FEE

E-TXGOV FEE

E-TXGOV FEE

FILING FEE

$10.00

$4.00

$4.00

$10.00

$4.00

$10.00

$10.00

$4.00

$4.00

$2,731.00

$4.00

$212.00

$4.00

$4.00

$4.00

$4.00

$175.00

07/19/2012

07/19/2012

06/29/2012

05/23/2012

05/23/2012

05/11/2012

05/11/2012

05/11/2012

05/11/2012

04/30/2012

04/24/2012

02/29/2012

02/28/2012

02/28/2012

02/23/2012

02/23/2012

02/17/2012

E-PAID

E-PAID

E-PAID

E-PAID

E-PAID

E-PAID

E-PAID

E-PAID

E-PAID

PAID

E-PAID

NOT PAID

E-PAID

E-PAID

E-PAID

E-PAID

PAID

APE

APE

ANT

ANT

ANT

APE

APE

APE

APE

ANT

APE

ANT

APE

APE

ANT

ANT

ANT

The costs incurred on appeal to the Fourteenth Court of Appeals Houston, Texas 

are $3,334.00.

Court costs in this cause shall be paid as per the Judgment issued by this Court.

I, CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE, CLERK OF THE FOURTEENTH COURT OF 

APPEALS OF THE STATE OF TEXAS, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing 

is a true and correct copy of the cost bill of THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE 

FOURTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS, showing the charges and payments, in the 

above numbered and styled cause, as the same appears of record in this office.

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, witness 

my hand and the Seal of the COURT 

OF APPEALS for the Fourteenth District 

of Texas, May 28, 2015.
Exhibit 32.2
 
 CERTIFICATION 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 Quarterly Report of Covenant Transportation Group, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Richard B. Cribbs, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:
 
 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 result of operations of the Company.
 
 
 Date:  May 13, 2011
/s/Richard B. CribbsRichard B. CribbsChief Financial Officer






Back to Form 10-Q