alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Mayor Stanley A. Clouse 

City of Kearney 

18 East 22nd Street 

P. 0. Box 1180 

Kearney, NE 68848-1180 

February 19, 2015 

Michael Martin 

Office of Aviation Analysis 

Department of Transportation 

400 7th Street, SW 

Washington, DC 20590 

TELEPHONE· (308) 233-3216 

FAX · (308) 234-6399 

E-MAIL· mayor@kearneygov.org 

WEBSITE · www.cityofkearnev.org 

RE: Kearney's Supporl of DEN-EAR Route Operated by Great Lakes Aviation 

Dear Mr. Martin: 

The Essential Air Service program has been and continues to be a vital economic lifeline for 

communities across the country, and especially in rural Nebraska. The continuing growth of our local 

economy is sustainable in large part because of the air service that has been supported and 

connections to the national and international air transportation system that exist today. 

Accordingly, the City of Kearney requests the selection of Great Lakes Aviation to provide essential air 

service for our community. The recommended proposal from Great Lakes is to provide two round trips 

daily from Kearney to Denver utilizing EMB-120 aircraft. Further, the City of Kearney respectfully 

requests that the proposal start date be March 1, 2015 and end February 29, 2016. 

The City of Kearney stands ready to assist and partner with Great Lakes Aviation in the promotion of 

regional jet service for our community. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. 

CITY OF KEARNEY 

Stanley A. Clouse 

Mayor 

SAC/jms 

We provide seNices, solutions, and opportunities for our community.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

JOY SUE

- ANN FRANCIS

, Appellant,

v.

GARTON EARL FRANCIS

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 22

- 2740

[ August 10, 2023 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fif teenth Judicial Circuit, Palm

Beach County ; Karen M. Miller , Judge; L.T. Case No. 2021DR008606NB

.

Samuel Alexander of Alexander Appellate Law P.A ., DeLand , for

appellant.

Verna Popo of The Law Office of Verna Popo, P.A ., Palm Beach Gardens

, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

K LINGENSMITH

, C.J., C ONNER and F ORST , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          81,410
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   39,071
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     76,320
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               213,709
<PP&E>                                         629,570
<DEPRECIATION>                                 289,960
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 598,285
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          873,098
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        57,450
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,945,774
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   598,285
<SALES>                                        274,539
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               276,923
<CGS>                                          686,892
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  686,892
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               815,866
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              94,429
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,320,265)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,320,265)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.23)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.23)
        

</TABLE>
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 17

- 3281

_____________________________
L ATOYA H OLSEY , Appellant,

v.

S TATE O F F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County

. Mark J. Borello , Judge

. January 12, 2018

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.
L EWIS , O STERHAUS , and B ILBREY , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________

Latoya Holsey, pro se
, Appellant.2 Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Bryan Jordan, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          26,122
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,383
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     15,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                67,255
<PP&E>                                         389,375
<DEPRECIATION>                                 195,187
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 299,530
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,278,418
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       112,824
<OTHER-SE>                                 (2,132,547)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   299,530
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,718,502
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                49,027
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,767,529)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,665
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,770,194)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
( 

An nuthori~y to con~t=uct or pe~it to operate shall not be transferable, whetl-.er b~· ope::-ntion of law or other-.·ize, either fro1:1 cne 

loclltio::. to another, fro:.1 c.:e piece of e'iuipe1ent to a:1other, or froc cne 

per~:;on to another.
Exhibit 102



		

			Exhibit 10.2

		




		
			 
		

		
			ServiceMaster Global Holdings, Inc.
		

		
			Approval of airplane usage perquisite for Mark J. Barry
		

		
			 
		

		
			On September 22, 2015, the Compensation Committee of ServiceMaster Global Holdings, Inc. approved as a perquisite up to 50 hours of personal flight time on an annual basis for Mark J. Barry.
Case: 1:18-cv-00354-TSB Doc #: 3 Filed: 05/23/18 Page: 1 of 9 PAGEID #: 30
Case: 1:18-cv-00354-TSB Doc #: 3 Filed: 05/23/18 Page: 2 of 9 PAGEID #: 31
Case: 1:18-cv-00354-TSB Doc #: 3 Filed: 05/23/18 Page: 3 of 9 PAGEID #: 32
Case: 1:18-cv-00354-TSB Doc #: 3 Filed: 05/23/18 Page: 4 of 9 PAGEID #: 33
Case: 1:18-cv-00354-TSB Doc #: 3 Filed: 05/23/18 Page: 5 of 9 PAGEID #: 34
Case: 1:18-cv-00354-TSB Doc #: 3 Filed: 05/23/18 Page: 6 of 9 PAGEID #: 35
Case: 1:18-cv-00354-TSB Doc #: 3 Filed: 05/23/18 Page: 7 of 9 PAGEID #: 36
Case: 1:18-cv-00354-TSB Doc #: 3 Filed: 05/23/18 Page: 8 of 9 PAGEID #: 37
Case: 1:18-cv-00354-TSB Doc #: 3 Filed: 05/23/18 Page: 9 of 9 PAGEID #: 38
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-4501

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

MUSTAFA A. CUNNINGHAM,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Charleston. Solomon Blatt, Jr., Senior District

Judge. (CR-96-733)

Submitted: May 11, 1999 Decided: May 21, 1999

Before LUTTIG, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Parks N. Small, Federal Public Defender, Columbia, South Carolina,

for Appellant. Robert Hayden Bickerton, Assistant United States

Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Mustafa Cunningham pled guilty to conspiracy to possess with

the intent to distribute and to distribute marijuana, 21 U.S.C.A.

§ 846 (West Supp. 1998). The district court imposed a thirty-month

sentence. Cunningham’s attorney has filed a brief in accordance

with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Counsel states

that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but raises the

following issue: whether the district court erred in refusing to

enforce a state court order that Cunningham serve any concurrent

federal sentence in a federal correctional institution. Although

informed of his right to file a supplemental brief, Cunningham has

failed to so file. Because our review of the record reveals no

reversible error, we affirm.

We have examined the entire record in this case in accordance

with the requirements of Anders, and find no meritorious issues for

appeal. This Court requires that counsel inform his client, in

writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United

States for further review. If the client requests that a petition

be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw

from representation. Counsel's motion must state that a copy

thereof was served on the client. We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in
3

the materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### Robert Anderson v. Samuel *W.*Odell, garnishee of Edgerton R. Smith, Franklin D. Gale and Dell Gale.

*Garnishment*— Assignment *of exempt property.*

Garnishment process will not reach personal property assigned by the principal debtor, if in his hands it would have been exempt from execution.

Creditors cannot attack the transfer of property which the law would not have allowed them to apply on their claims, whether it be real or personal.

Error to Muslcegon. (Russell, J.)

Oct. 3.

Oct. 17.

Garnishment. The garnishee brings error.

Reversed.

*493*Keatmg*& *Dicherrnan*for appellant.

A gamisbee can be charged only for such property as is liable to execution: Drake on Attachments (6th ed.) §§ 463, 480; *Ciarlo v. Av-erill*31 Yt. 512; *Wimterfield v. Mil. do St. P. Py. Co.*29 Wis. 589; if he allows judgment to be entered against him for exempt property, it will not protect him: *Loch v. Johnson,*36 Me. 464; *Pierce v. Chic. d¿ N. W. Py.*36 Wis. 283; if a garnishee has a valid lien on the defendant’s property in his possession the creditor cannot take it: Drake on Attachments § 533; *Nathan v. dies*5 Taunt. 558; *Kirhman*-y, *Hamilion*9 Mart. (O. S.) 297; *Nolen v. Crooh*5 Humph. 312; *Smith v. Clarice*9 la. 24Í.

*Campbell db Allen*for appellee^

Campbell, <J.

Defendant was sued as garnishee of defendants in the principal case, and the ground of liability was based on a claim that certain personal property which they had assigned to him was assigned in fraud of creditors. While some other questions may have had weight in the-case, the principal one, which probably would have controlling influence, arises out of a claim of exemption. The property was of such a nature as to be subject to exemption if retained by the assignors, and the court below so held. But it was also held that the exempt quality was lost by the transfer, and creditors who could not reach it before, could do so after.

We do not think this doctrine is tenable. Creditors have no right to complain of dealings with property which the law does not allow them to apply on their claims. So long as the statutory amount of exemption is not exceeded, there can be no appreciable reason why the property cannot be converted or exchanged. There is difficulty in understanding how a creditor can first become entitled to reach his debtor’s property the moment it ceases to be his property. In *Smith v. Rumsey*33 Mich. 183, this very question arose concerning a sale of exempt homestead property, and we held creditors were not authorized to attack it. The same principle applies, as we think, to any exempt property. We *494can see no ground for a distinction between realty and personalty.

The ruling was erroneous. The judgment must be. reversed with costs and a new trial granted.

The other Justices concurred.
#### Gray *v.*Batesville.

Opinion delivered March 18, 1905.

1. Municipal .corporation — defective highway — damages. — -A city is not liable for damages growing out of its failure to repair a defective bridge in a street within its limits. (Page 520.)

2. Same — liability of officers. — The mayor and members 'of a city council are not liable for failure to repair a defective bridge within the city limits. (Page 520.)

Appeal from Independence Circuit Court.

Frederick D. Fulkerson, Judge.

Affirmed.

STATEMENT BY THE COURT.

Action by John H. Gray against the city of Batesville, and the mayor and members of the city council, for damages caused from a defective bridge within the city limits which had been permitted to fall into disrepair and which the city had negligently failed to repair. The trial court instructed the jury to return a verdict for the defendant, which was done. Judgment was rendered accordingly, and the plaintiff appealed to this court.

*Yancey & Casey*and *Morris M. Cohn,*for appellant.

The city of Batesville is liable. Kirby’s Dig. § 5530; 58 *520Ark. 494; Elliott, Roads and Streets, 45; 1 Dill. Mun. Corp. § § 28, 576; 62 Ark. 7; 34 Ark. 246; 58 Ark. 348; 61 Ark. 397; 29 Ark. 569; 64 Ark. 240; 45 Conn. 550; 8 Mich. 534; 29 Ill. App. 117; 84 Hun, 281; 115 N. C. 18.2; 30 Wis. 365; 2 Wood, Nuisances, 749; 30 Wis. 365. The other defendants are also liable. 37 Hun, 360; Mechem, Pub. Off. § 70 t; 90 Am. Dec. 731; 51 Fed. 646,' 68 Pa. St. 407; 157 Mass. 277; 120 Mass. 352; 52 Ark. 541; 58 Ark. 270.

*Oldñeld & Cole,*for appellees.

Appellees are not liable. 27 Ark. 572; 34 Ark. 105; 49 Ark. 130; 52 Ark. 84; 84 S. W. 480; Kirby’s Dig. § § 548, 555; 21 L. R. A. 377; 27 L. R. A. 572; 135 U. S. 492i-43 Am. Rep. 655; 23 Am. & Eng. Enc. Eaw, 377; 61 Árk. 497; 43 Ark. 297; 54 Ark. 289; 56 Ark. 594; 2 Enc. PL & Pr. 500; 2 Cyc. 631.

McCuiaoch, J.,

(after stating the facts.) This case, as to the question of liability of the city, falls squarely within the rule announced in *Collier*v. *Ft. Smith,*73 Ark. 447; *Ft. Smith*v. *York,*52 Ark. 841, *and Arkdelphia*v. *Windham,*49 Ark. 139, and is controlled by them.

Now, are the mayor or members of the city council liable for a failure to repair the bridge? Officers or members of municipal bodies, charged with discretionary duties and powers with reference to public improvements, are quasi-judicial officers to that extent, and are not liable to damages for the improper exercise of those discretionary powers. *Lee*v. *Huff,*61 Ark. 494; 23 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, pp. 376, 377; *Pawlowski*v. *Jenks,*115 Mich. 275; *Fath*v. *Koeppel,*72 Wis. 289; *Smith*v. *Gould,*61 Wis. 31; *Hannon*v. *Grizzard,*96 N. C. 293; *Daniels*v. *Hathaway,*65 Vt. 247.

Judgment affirmed.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

June 30, 2014

No. 04-14-00443-CR

IN RE Darrell Eugene BATES

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

ORDER

Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

On June 20, 2014, relator filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus. This court has 

determined that we do not have jurisdiction to consider this petition. The petition for writ of 

mandamus is DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION. The court’s opinion will issue at a 

later date.

It is so ORDERED on June 30th, 2014.

_____________________________

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 30th day of June, 2014.

_____________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause Nos. 2010CR12259 and 2011CR1251W, styled The State of Texas v. Darrell 

Eugene Bates, in the 290th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Melisa Skinner presiding.
**Slip Op. 00-36 UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE**  **BEFORE: THE HONORABLE GREGORY W. CARMAN, CHIEF JUDGE**

**______________________________ :**  **LACLEDE STEEL CO., et**  **al. ,**  **: :**  **Plaintiffs, :** 

**: v.**  **: :**  **Consol. Court No. 93-09-00569-CVD UNITED STATES,**  **: :**  **Defendant, :**  **and :**  **: DONGBU STEEL CO.**  **: LTD.,**  **et al.**  **, :**  **: Defendant-**  **: Intervenors.**  **: ______________________________:**  **ORDER** This matter having been affirmed-in-part and reversed-in-part by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in AK Steel Corp. v. United States , 192 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 1999), and pursuant to this Court’s jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1651 (1994); and upon consideration of the submissions of all parties herein; and in consideration of: (1) the Court of Appeals having reversed “[t]he portion of the Court of International Trade’s judgment sustaining the imposition of countervailing duties based on domestic credit provided to the Korean steel industry by private Korean lenders,” AK Steel, 192 F.3d at 1376; and (2) the Court of Appeals having reversed “the portion of the Court of International Trade’s judgment affirming the assessment of countervailing duties based on preferential access to foreign credit,” id. at 1378; it is hereby ORDERED that this matter is remanded to the United States Department of Commerce to recalculate duties owed in conformity with the decision of the Court of Appeals; and it is further**Laclede Steel Co. v. United States**

**Consol. Court No. 93-09-00569-CVD** Page 2

ORDERED that Commerce file its final results with this Court within seventy-five (75) days of the entry of this Order; and it is further ORDERED that any party contesting the final remand results shall file comments with the Court within 20 days of the filing of the final remand results and responses shall be due 20 days thereafter.

________________________ Gregory W. Carman Chief Judge Dated: April 5, 2000 New York, New York
Exhibit 23.1







                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


         We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (File No. 333-61377) of Teledigital, Inc. (formerly known
as XOX Corporation) of our report dated January 22, 2004 (except as to Note 12
as to which the date is March 23, 2004) which appears on page 17 of this annual
report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2002.


                                           /s/ VIRCHOW, KRAUSE & COMPANY, LLP


Minneapolis, Minnesota
April 9, 2004
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, I, Stephen Pelletier, Chief
Executive Officer and President of Prudential Annuities Life Assurance Corporation (the Company), hereby certify that the Companys Form 10-Q/A for the quarter ended March 31, 2009 (the Report) fully complies with
the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated: September 4, 2009



/s/ Stephen PelletierName:

Stephen PelletierTitle:

Chief Executive Officer and President


The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not
being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
Before Magistrate Judge Sharon L. Ovington

INITIAL APPEARANCE Date: 5/10/18

Caption: USA v. TRAVIS EDWARD WALKER Case Number: 3:18-mj-361

[ U ] Defendant appeared without. 

[ U ] AUSA SaMee Harden, appeared on behalf of the Government.

[ U ] Rights and penalties explained and understood. Ct 1 15-30 yrs/$250,000 F/5 yrs - 

Life SR/$100 SA & Ct 2 5-20yrs/$250,000 F/5yrs-Life SR/$100 SA 

[ U ] Financial Affidavit approved. Thomas Anderson appointed as counsel. Arthur 

 Mullins appeared on behalf of Defendant for Thomas Anderson.

[ U ] The Government has moved for pretrial detention.

[ U ] Detention Hearing is set for 5/15/18 @ 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom #5 before

Magistrate Judge Sharon L. Ovington.

[ U ] Preliminary Hearing is set for 5/24/18 @ 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom #5 before

Magistrate Judge Sharon L. Ovington.

[ U ] Defendant is remanded to the custody of the U.S. Marshal.

[ U ] Other: The Government is moving for a limited unsealing of the Complaint and 

 Affidavit to provide Defense Counsel with a Copy; oral motion GRANTED by 

 the Court.

COURT REPORTER: CourtSmart CONVENED: 1:43

DEPUTY CLERK: Rose Plummer RECESSED: 1:47