alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### NORWEST BANK WORTHINGTON, et al., petitioners, v. James R. AHLERS, et ux.

No. 86-958.

Supreme Court of the United States.

Oct. 5, 1987.

The motion of respondents for leave to proceed further herein *in for-ma pauperis*is granted. The motion of petitioners to dispense with printing the joint appendix is granted. The motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as *amicus curiae*and for divided argument is denied.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 8 (Wednesday, January 14, 2009)]
[Senate]
[Page S353]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                          ECONOMIC RESCUE PLAN

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, many of us originally supported the 
economic rescue plan because we recognized we needed to act immediately 
to prevent an economic disaster.
  I heard from a lot of Kentuckians last fall who were hurting and 
wanted the Government to help, and I am still hearing from many small 
business owners and others across Kentucky who still need help. But 
those same Kentuckians are quick to call for assurances that whatever 
the Federal Government does should be undertaken with the assurance 
that taxpayer money will be spent wisely and will actually stimulate 
economic growth.
  The American people have questions and so does Congress. We want 
assurances that if we decide to release additional funding, this money 
will not be wasted, that it will not be used for industry-specific 
bailouts that some House Democrats are already requesting.
  We will be receiving briefings from the new President's team later 
today, and we look forward to hearing from them; that is, my Republican 
team. I know the new President was up here yesterday talking to the 
Democrats.
  While I feel strongly we must continue to stabilize the economy, I 
would find it exceedingly difficult to support use of additional 
taxpayer funds without serious assurances from the incoming 
administration that the taxpayers will be protected.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________
```
No. 86-696.

#### Fidelity Financial Corp. *v.*Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
EPA Reg. No. 10466-31
No. 86-858.

#### Reeder *v.*Kansas City Board of Police Commissioners et al.

C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

U.S. Indo-Pacific CommandUSINDOPACOM

U.S. Indo-Pacific Command

Search

Search
Search

-  Home		 
-  Leadership    -  Commander         
  -  Deputy Commander         
  -  Chief of Staff         
  -  Senior Enlisted Leader 
-  About USINDOPACOM    -  History         
  -  USPACOM Area of Responsibility         
  -  USPACOM Previous Commanders         
  -  Women, Peace and Security 
-  Organization    -  Organization Chart 
-  Media    -  News      -  Spotlight 
  -  Photos         
  -  Speeches / Testimony         
  -  Freedom of Information Act      -  FOIA - Reading Room         
    -  Submit FOIA Request         
    -  Request Status         
    -  FOIA FAQS 
-  Resources    -  Travel Requirements         
  -  Useful Theater Information         
  -  FAQ         
  -  Useful Links 
-  Newcomers		 
-  Contact    -  Directory         
  -  Media Inquiries         
  -  Industry Engagements 
-  JTF - Red Hill		 
-  JTF-Micronesia		 

Home : Media : News : News Article View

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# Joint Hurricane Exercise Tests Tripler's COMMS to Improve Emergency Readiness 

By Sgt. Natalie Kintz

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

More News
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7121

KEVIN L. CHOICE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus LIEUTENANT BROGTON, Kershaw Correctional Institution, South Carolina Department of Corrections; SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. David C. Norton, District Judge. (CA-00-1620-0-18BD) Submitted: November 9, 2000 Decided: November 15, 2000 Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kevin L. Choice, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Kevin L. Choice appeals the district court's order dismissingwithout prejudice his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2000) complaint and order denying his motion to reconsider. The court dismissed Choice’s complaint based on his failure to exhaust his state and administrative remedies. Because Choice may proceed with this action by first exhausting his remedies and thereafteramending his complaint to provide the exhaustion information requested by the court, his appeal is interlocutory and not subject to appellate review. See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392 , 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
No. 82-1041.

#### Dickman et al. *v.*Commissioner of Internal Revenue.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari granted.
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1093 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 1093

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To require the Federal Railroad Administration to provide appropriate 
congressional notice of comprehensive safety assessments conducted with 
    respect to intercity or commuter rail passenger transportation.

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

SECTION 1. NOTICE OF COMPREHENSIVE SAFETY ASSESSMENTS.

    (a) Initial Notice.--Not later than 10 business days after the 
Federal Railroad Administration initiates a comprehensive safety 
assessment of an entity providing regularly scheduled intercity or 
commuter rail passenger transportation, the Federal Railroad 
Administration shall notify in electronic format the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and 
the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate, 
and each member of Congress representing a State in which the service 
that is the subject of the assessment being conducted is located, of 
the initiation of that assessment.
    (b) Findings.--Not later than 90 days after completion of a 
comprehensive safety assessment described in subsection (a), the 
Federal Railroad Administration shall transmit in electronic format to 
the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of 
Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation of the Senate, and to each member of Congress 
representing a State in which the service that is the subject of the 
assessment being conducted is located, its findings of that assessment, 
including identified defects and any recommendations.
    (c) Definition.--For purpose of this section, the term 
``comprehensive safety assessment'' means a focused review of the 
safety-related processes and procedures, compliance with safety 
regulations and requirements, and overall safety culture of an entity 
providing regularly scheduled intercity or commuter rail passenger 
transportation.

            Passed the House of Representatives September 27, 2018.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
115th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 1093

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To require the Federal Railroad Administration to provide appropriate 
congressional notice of comprehensive safety assessments conducted with 
    respect to intercity or commuter rail passenger transportation.
```
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21

- 6287

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. EDWARD MARTIN ANDREWS, a/k/a Edward Andrews , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Alexandria

. Leonie M. Brinkema , District Judge. ( 1:11

- cr - 00320

- LMB

- 1 )

Submitted : April 29, 2021 Decided: May 5, 2021

Before AGEE, DIAZ, and RUSHING , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Edward Martin Andrews, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Edward Martin Andrews appeals the district court’s order den ying his motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), as amended by the First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115

- 391, § 603(b)(1), 132 Stat. 5194, 5239. After reviewing the record, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Andrews’
motion. See United States v. Kibble , 992 F.3d 326, 329 (4th Cir. 2021) (stating standard
of review ). A ccordingly, we deny Andrews’ motion to appoint counsel and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United S tates v. Andrews , No. 1:11

- cr - 00320

- LMB

- 1 (E.D. Va. Feb. 11, 2021) . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

 

 State,

v.

SANDRA FLORALIE DUFORAT,

 Appellee.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-22-00049-CR

Appeal from the

112th District Court

of Pecos County, Texas 

(TC# P-4141-112-CR)

O R D E R

The Court on its own motion ORDERS Gayla R. May, Substitute Court Reporter for the 

112th District Court of Pecos County, Texas, to electronically submit a supplemental reporter’s 

record containing State’s Exhibit 1 and Joint Exhibit 1. The supplemental reporter’s record is due 

with this Court on or before September 25, 2022. 

IT IS SO ORDERED this 15th day of September, 2022.

PER CURIAM

Before Rodriguez, C.J., Palafox and Alley, JJ.
# United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 19-2599

___________________________ Nicolas Escobar-Tejada lllllllllllllllllllll Petitioner

v. William P. Barr, Attorney General of the United States

lllllllllllllllllllll Respondent

____________ Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

____________ Submitted: March 17, 2020 Filed: March 20, 2020 [Unpublished]

____________ Before GRUENDER, BEAM, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

____________ PER CURIAM. Nicolas Escobar-Tejada, a citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals upholding an immigration judge’s denial of asylum and withholding of removal.Upon careful consideration, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the

agency’s determination that Escobar-Tejada was not entitled to asylum because he did not establish past persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of a protected ground. See Mayorga-Rosa v. Sessions, 888 F.3d 379, 382 (8th Cir. 2018) (standard of review). Having failed to satisfy his burden of proof for his asylum claim, Escobar-Tejada has necessarily failed to satisfy the more rigorous standard for withholding of removal. See Al Tawm v. Ashcroft, 363 F.3d 740, 744 (8th Cir. 2004). We find no other basis for granting the petition. Accordingly, the petition for review is denied. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

-2-
#### Thomas C. Reston v. The executors of Thomas Clayton, dec’d.

^Fl'om Ncw-Hanovcr.

A. bequeathed certain personal estates to trustees, “ until some one of bis grand-children, the lawful children of his daughter, B. should arrive to the age of twenty-one years, at which time the property was to be divided among his said grand-cliildven, equally, share and share alike.” Held, that *all*the grand-children living at the time the first of them attained to the age of twenty-one years, are entitled, share and share alike.

Thomas Clayton, by his last will, gave ids estates, both Veal and personal, to certain persons in trust, to sell his lauds and his perishable property, and hire out Ills slaves, 46 until some one of his grand-children, the lawful children of Isabella Reston, of Scotland, should arrive to the age of twenty-one years, at which time his slaves were to be divided among- his said grand-children, equally, share and share alike; and all the rest and residue of his estate, to be equally divided among his said.grand-children, and given to them when they should arrive to full age *respectively;*and that his executors should allow for the annual profits of his estates, whatever sutnorsumsof money they might think proper, for the education and maintenance of his said grand-children, until they respectively should arrive to full age.” At the time of the making of the will in July, 1793, and of the death of the testator, in October following-, Isabella Reston, named in the will, had three children, Thomas C. who arrived (to full age in October, 1810, Mary and William. After the death of the testator, and before Thomas C. Reston arrived to full age, Isabella Reston had seven other children, who were alive at the commencement of this suit *i*and the question submitted to this Court was, whether the estates of the testator were to be divided among- the three children living, at the *199death of the testator, or among the ten children, living at the time Thomas C. Reston arrived to full age.

Haul Judge,

delivered the opinion of the Court:— It is not necessary to enquire whether the legacies vested before the time pointed out for their payment. If they did not vest before that time, it is clear that all the grand-children are entitled ; if they did vest before that time, we aro authorised by the case of the *Attorney General*v. *Crispin,*(1 *Brown, Ch. Rep.*386,) to say, that tiie consequence is the same. All the grand-children of Isabella Reston, living when her Thomas C. arrived to full age, are equally *entitled.*— (Ves. jun. 136. 2 *Id.*687. 3 *Id.*119, 150. *Ambler,*334.)
Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission

Commission Monthly Case Activity for December 2022

1. Cases Pending Beginning of Month 20

2. Cases Added to Docket 1 

A Crane Rental LLC

19-1667

Direction for Review on December 6, 2022

3. Cases Subtracted from Docket -1 

UHS of Denver, Inc., dba Highlands Behavioral Health System

19-0550

Decision and Remand on December 8, 2022

 

4. Total Cases Pending End of Month 20
#### STATE v. WILLIAM ELWOOD.

A was indicted for murder, convicted, and sentenced *to be*banged; he *appealed,*and the judgment was affirmed. Subsequently he was pardoned: *Held,*that the court below had no power to amend the original judgment, by adding, “that the cost of the indictment be taxed against the defendant by the clerk, and that the defendant be in custody until the costs were paid.”

MotioN in the cause, heard before Schence, J., at Spring Term, 1S76, of Meciclenburg Superior Court.

The defendant was convicted upon an indictment for murder at Spring Term, 1875, and sentenced to be hanged. From that judgment he appealed to this Court, where the judgment was affirmed. Subsequently the defendant was pardoned. Thereupon a capias was issued, and the defendant appeared in Court and moved the Court that he be-discharged. The Solicitor moved that he be committed to jail until the cost of the action were paid, and for an amendment of the record by adding “ the cost in this indictment shall be taxed against the defendant by the Cleric.”

The Court allowed the motion of the Solicitor, and ordered the defendant into custody. From this judgment the defendant appealed.

*Attorney General Hargrove*and *Bledsoe,*for the State.

*ihipp & Bailey,*for the prisoner.

Rodjian, J.

*We*concur with the counsel for the defendant that the Judge had no power at Spring Term, 1876, to amend the record of Spring Term, 1875, as of that term, by entering a judgment which, at that term, he had no power to render. He might at May Term, 1875, have given judgment against the defendant for costs, upon which a *fi. fa.*might have afterwards issued. But he could not then, in *206addition to the judgment that the defendant be capitally executed, have given judgment that he pay the costs and be imprisoned until they were paid, or until his discharge as an insolvent. Such a judgment would be inconsistent with itself.

So much of the judgment below as directs that the defendant be imprisoned until the costs are paid, is reversed.

Let this opinion be certified to the Superior Court of Meck-lenburg, to the end, &c.

Per Curiam. Judgment accordingly.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Analogic Corporation (the
Company) for the fiscal year ended July 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, Michael L. Levitz, Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, and
Treasurer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that, to the best of his knowledge:



| | (1) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|                         |  |                                                                                     
|------------------------ |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                         |  | /S/    MICHAEL L.
LEVITZ                                                            
|Date: September 23, 2010 |  | Michael L. Levitz                                                                   
|                         |  | Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, and Treasurer
(Principal Financial Officer)
EX-10.4




 Exhibit 10.4 

FOURTH AMENDMENT TO THE 

AARON’S, INC. EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT PLAN 

THIS AMENDMENT to the Aaron’s, Inc. Employees Retirement Plan (the “Plan”) is made effective October 16, 2020. 

W I T N E S S E T H : 

WHEREAS, Aaron’s, Inc. previously established and has maintained the Plan for the benefit of eligible employees; and 

WHEREAS, sponsorship of the Plan is being transferred from Aaron’s, Inc. to Aaron’s Holdings Company, Inc.; and 

WHEREAS, the company wishes to amend the Plan to reflect the change in the plan sponsor; 

NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended as follows: 
  

	1.	 Section 1.17 is amended to read as follows: 



1.17 Company Stock means the common stock of the Controlling Company. 

 

	2.	 The sponsor will change from Aaron’s, Inc. to Aaron’s Holdings Company, Inc., and Section 1.21
is amended to read as follows: 


 1.21 Controlling Company means Aaron’s Holdings Company, Inc.,
and its successors that adopt the Plan. 
  

	3.	 Schedule A is amended to read as follows: 



SCHEDULE A 
 PARTICIPATING
COMPANIES 
 [see Plan Sections 1.30, 1.57 and 13.3] 

Progressive Finance Holdings, LLC 
 Dent-A-Med, Inc. 
 Woodhaven Furniture Industries, LLC 

Aaron’s, Inc. 
  

	4.	 Except as provided herein, the Plan will remain in full force and effect. 



(signature on the following page) 











 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Administrative Committee has caused its duly authorized member to
execute this Amendment on the date written below. 
  

			
	AARON’S HOLDINGS COMPANY, INC.
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Robert W. Kamerschen

		 	Name: Robert W. Kamerschen
		 	Title: Secretary
		 	Date: October 16, 2020



  
 2
Order entered September 16, 2019

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 19
- 00444
- CR BRANDON GORDY, Appellant

V. STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 283rd Judici al District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F18
- 00751
- T



### O RDER
T he reporter’s record, originally due June 11, 2019, is past due. We notified court reporter Vearneas Faggett by postcard dated June 13, 2019 and directed her to file the rep orter’s record by July 15, 2019. On July 31, 2019, we ordered the reporter’s record filed by August 30,
2019. We expressly cautioned court reporter Vearneas Faggett that the failure to file the reporter’s record by August 30 would result in the Court ta king whatever remedies it has available to ensure that the appeal proceeds in a timely fashion, which may include ordering that she not sit until the complete reporter’s record is filed. To date, the reporter’s record has not
been filed and we have had no communication from Ms. Faggett.
We ORDER that court reporter Vearneas Faggett NOT SIT as a court reporter until she has filed the complete reporter’s record in this appeal.We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order to the Honorable Lela Mays,

Pr esiding Judge, 283rd Judicial District Court; Vearneas Faggett, official court reporter, 283rd Judicial District Court; to the Dallas County Auditor’s Office; and counsel for all parties.

/s/ CORY L. CARLYLE JUSTICE