alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 93 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 93

Expressing support for the designation of March 2, 2019, as ``Gold Star 
                      Families Remembrance Day''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 5, 2019

   Mr. Cotton (for himself, Mr. Jones, Mr. Manchin, and Ms. McSally) 
 submitted the following resolution; which was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Expressing support for the designation of March 2, 2019, as ``Gold Star 
                      Families Remembrance Day''.

Whereas March 2, 2019, marks the 90th anniversary of President Calvin Coolidge 
        signing an Act of Congress that approved and funded the first Gold Star 
        pilgrimage to enable Gold Star mothers and widows to travel to the 
        gravesites of their loved ones who died during World War I;
Whereas the members and veterans of the Armed Forces bear the burden of 
        protecting the freedom of the people of the United States; and
Whereas the sacrifices of the families of the fallen members and veterans of the 
        Armed Forces should never be forgotten: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the Senate--
            (1) supports the designation of March 2, 2019, as ``Gold 
        Star Families Remembrance Day'';
            (2) honors and recognizes the sacrifices made by the 
        families of veterans and members of the Armed Forces who gave 
        their lives to defend freedom and protect the United States; 
        and
            (3) encourages the people of the United States to observe 
        Gold Star Families Remembrance Day--
                    (A) by performing acts of service and good will in 
                their communities; and
                    (B) by celebrating the lives of those who have made 
                the ultimate sacrifice so that others could continue to 
                enjoy life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
                                 <all>
```
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

IN THE MATTER OF 

IV ED '~::; jti ?i''l·5 , U1:..,1 U >¥i.J 

MACH ONE AIR CHARTERS, INC. 

HEARING DOCKET 

FAA DOCKET NO. [TO BE ASSIGNED] 

(Civil Penalty Proceedings) 

FDMS NO. FAA-2015-0643 

COMPLAINANT'S RESPONSE TO RESPONDENT'S SECOND REQUEST FOR 

DISCOVERY 

Complainant, through counsel, provides the following in response to Respondent's 

discovery request served on July 10, 2015. 

INTERROGATORIES 

1. The service providerfor 651-587-7457 is Verizon, and for 651-224-1100 it is Integra. 

Complainant does not have any of the other information requested. 

REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF .DOCUMENTS 

1-3. Complainant does not have and is not aware of any such documents. 

Served this 13th day of August 2015. 

Peter J. Lynch 

Assistant Chief Counsel 

for Enforcement 

By: 

Glenn H. Brown 

Enforcement Division, Western Team 

1 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

Re: Mach One Air Charters, Inc. 

FAA Case No. 2014WP210018 

DMS NO. FAA-2015-0643 

I hereby certify that on this date I served a copy of the COMPLAINANT'S RESPONSE TO 

RESPONDENT'S SECOND REQUEST FOR DISCOVERY postage-prepaid, certified mail, 

return receipt requested, addressed as follows: 

H. Dan Hill, CEO 

Mach One Air Charters, Inc., Respondent 

7000 Merrill Avenue, #63 

Chino, CA 91710 

Steven L. Graff, Respondent's counsel 

Steven L. Graff, Inc. 

43399 Calle De Velardo 

Temecula, CA 92592 

I further certifY that on this date I have served the original and a copy of the 

COMPLAINANT'S RESPONSE TO RESPONDENT'S SECOND REQUEST FOR 

DISCOVERY by postage-prepaid, certified mail, return receipt requested, addressed as follows: 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, SW 

Washington, DC 20591 

ATTN: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2W1000 

Office of the Regional ounsel 

222 West 7th Avenue #14 

Anchorage, Alaska 99513-7587 

2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
vs. Case No. 3:18cr109
DEVANTE PARDUE, JUDGE WALTER H. RICE

Defendant.

ENTRY RELEASING DEFENDANT TO THE DETAINER OF THE ADULT
PAROLE AUTHORITY, IN ORDER THAT HE MIGHT SERVE HIS POST-
RELEASE CONTROL REVOCATION TIME PRIOR TO SERVING THE
FEDERAL SENTENCE IMPOSED BY THE UNDERSIGNED

On April 4, 2019, this Court sentenced the captioned Defendant to a term of custody in
the Bureau of Prisons of 37 months. The Court has been advised that Defendant is also facing a
number of months in state custody as a result of a violation of Post-Release Control.

It is the order of this Court that Defendant be released to the Adult Parole Authority,
instanter, in order that he might serve his Post-Release Control revocation time prior to serving
his federal sentence imposed herein by the undersigned. In that manner, he will serve the bulk of
his federal sentence AFTER he serves his state court revocation time.

This Court would appreciate notice by both the United States Marshals Service and the

Adult Parole Authority, indicating that this Court’s Order has been honored.


The U.S. Marshals Service is to place a detainer on Defendant, once he is transferred to

state custody.

Lhe SCO

April 25, 2019 WALTER H. RICE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies to:

Counsel of record
Jordan Lear, Adult Parole Authority
U.S. Marshals Service
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                         18,224
<SECURITIES>                                  918,601
<RECEIVABLES>                                  31,876
<ALLOWANCES>                                        0
<INVENTORY>                                         0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    0
<PP&E>                                              0
<DEPRECIATION>                                      0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              1,194,575
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               0
<BONDS>                                       118,500
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                        1,956
<OTHER-SE>                                    596,994
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  598,950
<SALES>                                             0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               48,307
<CGS>                                               0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  21,963
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (2,601)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              1,851
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                27,094
<INCOME-TAX>                                    7,876
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            19,218
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                   19,218
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    1.03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0.98
        


</TABLE>
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

Sean Zeigler,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 1:18cv580

Warden, Lebanon Correctional Institution,

Defendants.

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) filed 

by the Magistrate Judge on December 5, 2023 (Doc. 48). 

Proper notice has been given to the parties under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), 

including notice that the parties may forfeit rights on appeal if they failed to file 

objections to the R&R in a timely manner. United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th 

Cir. 1981). No objections to the Magistrate Judge’s R&R (Doc. 48) have been filed

and the time to do so has expired.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the R&R (Doc. 48) of the Magistrate Judge is 

hereby ADOPTED. Consistent with the recommendation by the Magistrate Judge, the 

instant Motion for Relief from Judgment (Doc. 47) is denied. Because reasonable jurists 

would not disagree with this conclusion, the Petitioner is denied a certificate of 

appealability, and the Court certifies to the Sixth Circuit that any appeal would be 

objectively frivolous and should not be permitted to proceed in forma pauperis.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Michael R. Barrett 

Michael R. Barrett, Judge

Case: 1:18-cv-00580-MRB-MRM Doc #: 49 Filed: 12/27/23 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: 2068
2

United States District Court

Case: 1:18-cv-00580-MRB-MRM Doc #: 49 Filed: 12/27/23 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: 2069
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 24

                                POWER OF ATTORNEY

      Each of the undersigned officers and directors of Applied Innovation Inc.,
a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), hereby appoints Gerard B. Moersdorf,
Jr., Robert L. Smialek, and Curtis A. Loveland as his true and lawful
attorneys-in-fact, or any of them, with power to act without the other, as his
true and lawful attorney-in-fact, in his name and on his behalf, and in any and
all capacities stated below, to sign and to cause to be filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission the Company's annual report on Form 10-K, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2001, and any and all amendments thereto,
hereby granting unto said attorneys, and to each of them, full power and
authority to do and perform in the name and on behalf of the undersigned, in any
and all such capacities, every act and thing whatsoever necessary to be done in
and about the premises as fully as each of the undersigned could or might do in
person, hereby granting to each such attorney full power of substitution and
revocation, and hereby ratifying all that either such attorney or his substitute
may do by virtue hereof.

      IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Power of Attorney
in counterparts if necessary, effective as of March 18, 2002.

DIRECTORS/OFFICERS:

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                  Signature                                    Title
                  ---------                                    -----
<S>                                            <C>
/s/ Gerard B. Moersdorf, Jr.                   Chairman of the Board and Founder
----------------------------------------
       Gerard B. Moersdorf, Jr.

/s/ Robert L. Smialek                          Chief Executive Officer, President and Director
----------------------------------------       (Principal Executive Officer)
         Robert L. Smialek

/s/ Michael P. Keegan                          Vice President, Chief Financial Officer
----------------------------------------       and Treasurer
         Michael P. Keegan                     (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)

/s/ Michael J. Endres                          Director
----------------------------------------
         Michael J. Endres

 /s/ Thomas W. Huseby                          Director
----------------------------------------
         Thomas W. Huseby

 /s/ William H. Largent                        Director
----------------------------------------
         William H. Largent

/s/ Curtis A. Loveland                         Director
----------------------------------------
         Curtis A. Loveland

/s/ Gerard B. Moersdorf, Sr.                   Director
----------------------------------------
         Gerard B. Moersdorf, Sr.

/s/ Richard W. Oliver                          Director
----------------------------------------
         Richard W. Oliver

/s/ Alexander B. Trevor                        Director
----------------------------------------
         Alexander B. Trevor
</TABLE>
IV 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 118 

Authorizing the use of the rotunda of the Capitol for a ceremony to present 

Congressional Gold Medals to the United States Capitol Police and 

others who protected the Capitol on January 6, 2021. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 29, 2022 

Ms. PELOSI submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred 

to the Committee on House Administration 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Authorizing the use of the rotunda of the Capitol for a 

ceremony to present Congressional Gold Medals to the 

United States Capitol Police and others who protected 

the Capitol on January 6, 2021. 

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 

2 concurring), 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HCON 118 IH 

1 SECTION 1. USE OF ROTUNDA FOR CEREMONY TO 

2 PRESENT CONGRESSIONAL GOLD MEDALS TO 

3 UNITED STATES CAPITOL POLICE AND OTH4 ERS WHO PROTECTED THE CAPITOL ON JAN5 UARY 6, 2021. 

6 The rotunda of the Capitol is authorized to be used 

7 on December 6, 2022, for a ceremony to present Congres8 sional Gold Medals to the United States Capitol Police and 

9 others who protected the Capitol on January 6, 2021. 

10 Physical preparations for the ceremony shall be carried 

11 out in accordance with such conditions as the Architect 

12 of the Capitol may prescribe. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>  5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                                                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                        6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                    DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                       JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                         JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                               132,535
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        7,580,511
<ALLOWANCES>                                         76,161
<INVENTORY>                                          590,670
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     9,541,971
<PP&E>                                               68,392,951 
<DEPRECIATION>                                       18,894,201
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       59,040,721
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                18,855,756
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                             18,527
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                           9,459,305
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         59,040,721
<SALES>                                              34,496,607
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     34,496,607
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     32,127,866
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     19,210
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   1,673,249
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      676,282
<INCOME-TAX>                                         257,561
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  418,721
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         418,721
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0.23
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0.23
        

</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON 

TREVIS FOY, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

TRANS UNION, LLC and RAC 

ACCEPTANCE EAST, LLC dba 

ACCEPTANCE NOW a foreign company, 

 Defendants. 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

 Case No. 3:18-cv-201 

 Judge Thomas M. Rose 

 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

ENTRY AND ORDER RE: JOINT NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT (DOC. 19) 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

This case is before the Court on the Joint Notice of Settlement (Doc. 19) filed by Defendant 

Trans Union, LLC (“Trans Union”). Plaintiff, Trevis Foy, and Trans Union reached a settlement 

as to all matters raised by Plaintiff against Trans Union in this action. As a result, Trans Union 

does not intend to participate in preparation of the parties’ Rule 26(f) Report or the Preliminary 

Pretrial Conference scheduled for December 6, 2018. The Court will not require Trans Union to 

participate in those matters. The Court reminds Plaintiff and Trans Union, however, that any 

stipulation of dismissal pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) must be signed by all parties 

who have appeared in the action. See Anderson-Tully Co. v. Fed. Ins. Co., 347 F. App’x 171, 176 

(6th Cir. 2009). If the signatures of all parties cannot be obtained, Plaintiff and Trans Union must 

move for dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2). 

DONE and ORDERED in Dayton, Ohio, this Wednesday, November 28, 2018. 

s/Thomas M. Rose 

 ________________________________ 

THOMAS M. ROSE 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

EASTERN DIVISION 

United States of America 

 v. 2:18-cr-110 

 Chief Judge Marbley 

Edward Charles Robinson 

ORDER 

 There being no objections, the Court hereby adopts the Report 

and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 40) that the 

defendant’s guilty plea be accepted. The Court accepts the 

defendant’s plea of guilty to Count 1 of the Indictment, and he is 

hereby adjudged guilty on this count. The Court will defer the 

decision of whether to accept the plea agreement until the sentencing 

hearing. 

Date: January 17, 2020 s\Algenon L. Marbley 

 Algenon L. Marbley 

 Chief United States District Judge
#### Patterson *v.*State.

Crim. 4043

Opinion delivered July 12, 1937.

*D. W. Bryan,*for appellant.

*Jack Holt,*Attorney General, and *John P. Streepey,*Assistant, for appellee.

Humphreys, J.

Information was filed against appellant in the name of the State of Arkansas by the prosecuting attorney of the Fifteenth Judicial District of Arkansas, before a justice of the peace, for drawing a check on the First National Bank of Fort Smith for $7.50,-which check was dishonored because appellant had no money in said bank subject to check. The information was preferred under act 304 of the Acts of 1929 amending act 258 of the General Assembly of 1913.

This court held in the case of *Smith*v. *State,*147 Ark. 49, 226 S. W. 531, that it was not an offense to give a post-dated check. The amended act makes it an offense to draw a check upon a bank, with intent to defraud, in which the drawer has no money or credit if the maker knows at the time that he does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the bank for the payment of the check, provided he does not make the check good *489■within ten days after notice of the dishonor of the check.

Appellant was convicted by the Justice of the Peace and on appeal to the circuit court was again convicted and fined $10, from which is this appeal.

Appellant first assigns as error the failure of the trial court to instruct the jury to acquit him becáuse he says the evidence shows that the check was dated December 1, and that he drew and delivered it on Novem-. ber 30, or that it shows that it was a post-dated check. Even if the check was post-dated, as the law now stands, he would be guilty of the crime charged if he executed and delivered the check for the purpose of defrauding the drawee or payee and failed to make it good within ten days after being notified that it had been dishonored.

Appellant has failed to abstract the evidence in the case and it may be that the evidence reflects that appellant drew and delivered the check with the purpose of defrauding the payee.

Again, appellant assigns as error the failure of the court to instruct a verdict of acquittal because the evidence fails to reflect that he gave the check to defraud the payee. As stated above, appellant has failed to abstract the evidence, so, without exploring the record of the evidence, we • are unable to say that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the judgment.

Rule ten of the court is as follows:

“In misdemeanor cases the appellant shall file with the clerk when the case is subject to call for submission under the statute an abstract or abridgment of the transcript as in civil cases.”

, ■ The Attorney General has called our attention to this rule and it is one that must be rigidly enforced, in order for the court to keep up with the ■ docket and prevent delays that would result in great prejudice to many litigants.

The judgment must be affirmed and it is accordingly done.
EXHIBIT 23.1

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We  consent  to  the  incorporation  by  reference in Registration Statement No.
333-80505 of P.A.M. Transportation Services, Inc. (the "Company") on Form S-8 of
our  report  dated  March  10,  2004,  relating  to  the  consolidated financial
statements  of  the  Company as of and for the years ended December 31, 2003 and
2002  (which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory
paragraph  concerning  the  Company's  change  in  its  method of accounting for
goodwill  to  conform  to  Statement  of Financial Accounting Standards No. 142,
Goodwill  and Other Intangible Assets, as of January 1, 2002), appearing in this
Annual  Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2003.


/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP

Little Rock, Arkansas
March 5, 2004