alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">Dawn Schnopp, Appellant,<br><br>against<br><br>Michael Mondesir, Respondent.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Suffolk County, Sixth District (David A. Morris, J.), entered December 2, 2014. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the action.</p><p>ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.</p><p>In this small claims action, plaintiff seeks to recover the sum of $5,000 for damage to her car allegedly caused by defendant when he used a shovel to clear snow off plaintiff's car. After a nonjury trial, the District Court dismissed the action.</p><p>In a small claims action, our review is limited to a determination of whether "substantial justice has . . . been done between the parties according to the rules and principles of substantive law" (UDCA 1807; <i>see</i> UDCA 1804; <i>Ross v Friedman</i>, 269 AD2d 584 [2000]; <i>Williams v Roper</i>, 269 AD2d 125, 126 [2000]). The determination of a trier of fact as to issues of credibility is given substantial deference, as a trial court's opportunity to observe and evaluate the testimony and demeanor of the witnesses affords it a better perspective from which to assess their credibility (<i>see Vizzari v State of New York</i>, 184 AD2d 564 [1992]; <i>Kincade v Kincade</i>, 178 AD2d 510, 511 [1991]). This deference applies with greater force to judgments rendered in the Small Claims Part of the court (<i>see Williams v Roper</i>, 269 AD2d at 126). </p><p>Upon a review of the record, we find that the District Court's determination is supported by the record and provided the parties with substantial justice (<i>see</i> UDCA 1804, 1807).</p><p>Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.</p><p>Marano, P.J., Iannacci and Garguilo, JJ., concur.</p><br>Decision Date: December 07, 2016<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_2_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
### Attachment A**- 4**  **. School Principal Telephone Call Script** 

Hello! We are calling from REL Southwest
— one of the Regional Education Laboratories funded by the U.S. Department of Education. We are conducting a study that looks at changes in the mathematics course requirements for high school graduation being implemented under Texas House Bill 5 (the Foundation High School Program). The study will investigate whether providing the parents of students entering grade 9 during the 2014
- 15 school year with information about the changes to the mathematics course requirements (as well as providing a comparison of the admissions requirements for most four

year, public universities and colleges in Texas) has an impact on students’ mathe matics course enrollment in high school. Specifically, the study will look at differences in the algebra II enrollment and completion between students whose parents received this information and those students whose parents did not receive this information
. We are looking for high schools that are willing to mail informational materials describing the changes to the high school graduation mathematics requirements to parents of students entering grade 9 during the 2014

- 15 school year. Materials will be distr ibuted during the early spring of 2016. The study will be conducted as a randomized controlled trial. At the beginning of the study, one - half of the participating high schools will be randomly assigned to receive study materials and asked to distribute the se materials during the spring of 2016. The remaining high schools will conduct business

- as - usual during this time period but will receive study materials at the conclusion of the study, if desired. The study materials will consist of information brochure s — provided in English and Spanish
— to be mailed to students’ homes. Schools randomly assigned to receive study materials will receive a box of prepaid, pre

- stuffed envelopes containing the informational brochures, and they will be asked to print and adhere mailing labels containing student addresses to the envelopes and place them in the U.S. Mail. REL Southwest will reimburse schools up to $150 to cover the cost of staff time and address label printing materials. Schools will not be asked to provide any stu dent data to REL Southwest. Participating schools will receive informational brochures describing the new mathematics requirements being implemented under the new Foundation High School Program graduation plans and how they compare to the admissions requ irements for most four

-year, public universities and colleges in Texas . Schools will be asked to distribute these materials to parents via mail . The brochures will be available in English and Spanish. These brochures are designed to help students in your s chools make informed choices about the mathematics courses they complete.Participation in this study is voluntary

. Are you interested in having your school participate in

the study?
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A17A0667. THOMAS MORRISON et al. v. STEVE KICKLIGHTER.

The plaintiffs, Thomas Morrison and Charles and Suzette Morrison, filed a

complaint for damages against Steve Kicklighter following a car accident. After a

jury verdict in favor of Kicklighter, the trial court entered a judgment for Kicklighter

in the amount of $4,209.35. The plaintiffsfiled a motion for new trial, which the trial

court denied. The plaintiffs then filed this direct appeal. We, however, lack

jurisdiction.

Under OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (6), appeals in all actions for damages in which the

judgment is $10,000 or less must comply with the discretionary appeal procedures. 

Because this suit is an action for damages and the judgment entered was less than

$10,000, a discretionary application was required. See Jennings v. Moss, 235 Ga.

App. 357, 357 (509 SE2d 655) (1998); see also Emerson v. Brookmere Homeowners

Ass’n, 311 Ga. App. 371, 371 n.1 (715 SE2d 775) (2011). The plaintiffs’ failure to

file an application for discretionary appeal deprives us of jurisdiction over this direct

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.

December 07, 2016

12/07/2016
# Rupprecht Law P. A.
324 Datura Street, Suite 200 | West Palm Beach, FL 33401 P: (561) 222

- 6979 | E: jon@jrupprechtlaw.com | W: www.jrupprechtlaw.com

June 10 , 2015 U. S. Department of Transportation Docket Management System 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12

- 140, Washington, DC 20590

Dear S ir or Madam:

Precision Aerial Filmworks, Inc. ’ s Motion Picture and TV Operating Manual has been confidentially submitted to 333exemptions@faa.gov on June 10, 2015. If I can be of any assistance to further expedite this petition, please do not hesitate to contact me at (561)222

- 6979 or at my email jon@jrupprechtlaw.com

Sincerely yours,

_____________________ Jonathan Rupprecht, Esq.
TERMINATION AGREEMENT

THIS TERMINATION AGREEMENT (the "Agreement") is
made and entered into effective as of May 13, 2005,
by and between EYI INDUSTRIES, INC. a Nevada Corporation
(the "Company"), and CORNELL CAPITAL PARTNERS, LP, a
Delaware limited partnership (the "Investor").

Recitals:

WHEREAS, the Company and the Investor entered into a
Standby Equity Distribution Agreement (the "Standby Equity
Distribution Agreement"); a Registration Rights Agreement
(the "Registration Rights Agreement") and an Escrow Agreement
all of which are dated as of June 22, 2004 (the "Escrow
Agreement").  (Collectively, the Standby Equity Distribution
Agreement, the Registration Rights Agreement, and the Escrow
Agreement are referred to herein as the "Transaction Documents."

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises and the
mutual promises, conditions and covenants contained herein
and in the Transaction Documents and other good and valuable
consideration, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the
parties hereto agree as follows:

1.	Termination.  Each of the parties to this Agreement hereby
terminates the Transaction Documents and the respective rights and
obligations contained therein.  As a result of this provision, none
of the parties shall have any rights or obligations under or with
respect to the Transaction Documents.

	IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have signed and
delivered this Termination Agreement on the date first set
forth above.

EYI INDUSTRIES, INC.

By:/s/ Dori O'Neill
Name:	Dori O'Neill
Title:	Chief Operating Officer

CORNELL CAPITAL PARTNERS, LP

By: Yorkville Advisors, LLC
Its: General Partner

By:/s/ Mark A. Angelo
Name:	Mark A. Angelo
Title:	Portfolio Manager
* 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. 08-30454

UNITED STEELWORKERS LOCAL 9121, AFL-CIO-CLC,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

BAYOU STEEL CORPORATION,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

No. 2:07-CV-4166

Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The plaintiff union sued the defendant employer to compel arbitration of

the employer’s refusal to count, for purposes of the accumulation of retirement

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

December 4, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 08-30454

2

benefits, the period of three and one-half years during which the union was on

strike. The district court declined to order arbitration, agreeing with the employer that the dispute concerned the pension plan, as distinguished from the

collective bargaining agreement or the settlement agreement that was entered

into at the conclusion of the strike. 

We have reviewed the briefs on appeal and pertinent portions ofthe record

and have heard the arguments of counsel. Because we find no reversible error,

the judgment is AFFIRMED.
#### Tubbs vs. Doll and others.

October 25.

On an appeal from a *judgment*of foreclosure this court will not review an order in the cause made prior to the judgment, denying a motion to bring in anew party defendant, unless the order was excepted to, and a bill of exceptions settled, under sec. 12, chap. 264, Gen. Laws of 1860.

An appeal might have been taken from the order without any exception, under secs. 5 and 8 of the same chapter.

APPEAL from the Circuit Court for *Dane*County.

The case is stated by the court.

*J. O. Hopkins*and *D Jussen,*for appellants.

*Julius T.*Clark, for respondent.

*By the*Court,

Dixoít, C. J.

Appeal by defendants from a judgment of foreclosure and sale. A portion of the mortgaged premises having been conveyed to the defendant *John Hsser,*a married man, by deed executed, acknowledged and recorded before the commencement of the action, the defendants moved, on affidavit pursuant to the statute, chap. 60, Laws of 1861, for an order making the wife, Eranzislca Esser, a party to the action, on the ground that she was interested and her interests should be protected. The motion was denied, and final judgment afterwards entered. The object of this appeal is to review the order of the court upon the motion. ¿It is insisted that the order should have been made, and that is the only ground of complaint. A bare inspection of the statute regulating appeals to this court, (chap. 264, Laws of 1860), will show that the defendants have mistaken their remedy. They have not appealed from the order, which they might, without exception, under sections five and eight; nor excepted to it and settled their *641bill, under section twelve, wbicb must be done to bring it up on an appeal from tbe judgment. *Cord vs.*Southwell, p. 211. The order is not, therefore, before ns for review, and the judgment must be affirmed.

Ordered accordingly.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                            9

<LEGEND>
     THIS SCHEDULE  CONTAINS SUMMARY  FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM THE
     QUARTERLY  REPORT  ON FORM  10-QSB  AND IS  QUALIFIED  IN ITS  ENTIRETY  BY
     REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL INFORMATION.
</LEGEND>

<MULTIPLIER>                                   1000

<S>                                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                 6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                  MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                          2,203
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                            152
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                    0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                    0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                        23
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                             23
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                               23
<LOANS>                                        39,893
<ALLOWANCE>                                       198
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 59,012
<DEPOSITS>                                     50,709
<SHORT-TERM>                                    2,200
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                               915
<LONG-TERM>                                         0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                        1,698
<OTHER-SE>                                      3,490
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 59,012
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                   766
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                 223
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   12
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                1,001
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                                354
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                374
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                             627
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                       9
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                  0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                   494
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   219
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                        219
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                      135
<EPS-BASIC>                                       .33
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     .33
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                   4.43
<LOANS-NON>                                       406
<LOANS-PAST>                                      406
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                  406
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                   406
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                  191
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       2
<RECOVERIES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                 198
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                              198
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                           198



</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                            1036
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                            3082
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                      11342
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                             751
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                               755
<LOANS>                                          45618
<ALLOWANCE>                                        781
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   62785
<DEPOSITS>                                       53904
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                                229
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            11
<OTHER-SE>                                        8641
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                   62785
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                   3818
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                  619
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   390
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                  4827
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                                2211
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                2211
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                             2616
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                        0
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                   1808
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    973
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                         973
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       582
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .70
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .67
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.21
<LOANS-NON>                                        108
<LOANS-PAST>                                        10
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                    82
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   790
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       22
<RECOVERIES>                                        13
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                  781
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                96
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            385



</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2154 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2154

To amend the Migratory Bird Treaty Act to extend the Federal framework 
 closing date for the hunting of ducks, mergansers, and coots, and for 
                            other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 21, 2021

  Mr. Kennedy introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
       referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Migratory Bird Treaty Act to extend the Federal framework 
 closing date for the hunting of ducks, mergansers, and coots, and for 
                            other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF THE FEDERAL FRAMEWORK CLOSING DATE FOR THE 
              HUNTING OF DUCKS, MERGANSERS, AND COOTS.

    Section 3(c)(1)(B) of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 
704(c)(1)(B)) is amended by striking ``January 31'' and inserting 
``March 10''.
                                 <all>
```
### File d 1 2 /6 /1 8 b y Cle r k o f S u p r e m e Co u r t IN THE S UPREME COURT S TATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2018 ND 251

Eric Lance Sabot, Petitioner and Appellant

v. State of North Dakota, Respondent and Appellee

No. 20180191
Appeal f rom the District C ourt of Burleigh C ou n t y , S o uth Central Ju dicial District, the Honorable Dann E. Greenwood, Judge.
AFFIRMED.
Per Curiam

. Benjam in C. Pulkrabek, Mandan, ND, f or petitioner and appellant.
Ladd R. E rickson, Assistant State’s Attorney , W ashburn, ND, f or respondent and appellee; subm i tted on brief

.Sabot v. State No. 20180191

Per Curiam
. [ ¶1] Eric Sabot appe a l s f r o m a district court o rder sum m arily d ism issing his application f

or post-conviction relief

. Sabot was f

ound guilty o f terrorizing and his conviction was af

f irm e d in S t a t e v. Sabot , 2 017 ND 2 80, 904 N.W .2d 469. Sabot applied f or p ost-conviction relief claim i ng his s ente n c e was illegal, h e was denied equal protection of the law, he received inef f e ctive assistan c e of counsel, and evidence not previously heard required v acation of his sentence. The S tate answered Sabot’s application and m oved f or sum m ary disposition, claim ing his application did not raise issues o f m aterial f act. Sabot responded to the m otion b ut did not subm it any af f idavits o r o ther com

petent adm issible evidence. T he district c ourt sum m arily dism issed the application, ruling Sabot f ailed to raise an issue of

m aterial f

act. [ ¶2] W e sum m arily af

f ir m u n d er N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2),(7); Howard v. State , 2015 ND 102, 863 N.W .2d 203 (holding a p plicant f or p ost-conviction relief resisting

a m otion f

o r sum m ary disposition m ay not rely on pleadings or unsup p orted conclusory allegations, but m ust present com

petent, adm issible evidence raising issue of m aterial f

act). [ ¶3] Gerald W . VandeW alle, C.J. Daniel J. Crothers Lisa Fair McEvers Jon J. Jensen Jerod E. Tuf

te

1
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection 

Rachel Carson State Office Building 

P.O. Box 2063 

Secretary 

Mr. Shawn M. Garvin 

Regional Administrator 

Harrisburg, PA 17105-2063 

April 26, 2010 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III 

1650 Arch Street (Mail Code: 3RAOO) 

Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029 

Dear Mr. Garvin: 

717-787-2814 

I am pleased to submit a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision addressing compliance 

with Section 110(a)(2) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the 2006 24-hour National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS) for fine particulate (PM2.s) and for Section 11 0(a)(2)(G) for the 

1997 NAAQS for PM2.5. Section 110(a)(I) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), 42 U.S.C. § 7410(a)(1), 

provides that states must adopt and submit SIP revisions to the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) within three years after the promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS. The 

"infrastructure" SIP revision addressing the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of 

the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS was due to your agency on September 21, 2009. 

Enclosed are two hard copies and a compact clisk containing the PM2.5 Infrastructure SIP 

submittal, which includes a certification for the Department of Environmental Protection's 

(DEP) public participation activities. The public participation process for this SIP revision 

included a 30-day written comment period and an opportunity for a public hearing. (See 

39 Pa. B. 7924, December 26, 2009). The DEP did not receive any comments during the public 

comment period, which closed on January 29,2010. 

Thank you in advance for the expeditious consideration of this SIP submittal. Please 

contact Joyce E. Epps, Director, Bureau of Air Quality, bye-mail atjeepps@state.pa.us or by 

telephone at 717-787-9702, if you have questions or need additional information. 

Enclosures 

An Equal Opportunity Employer 

Sincerely, 

dj(~ \ 

John Hanger 

Secretary 

www.dep.state.pa.us Printed on Recycled paper@