alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          408020
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   335910
<ALLOWANCES>                                     61802
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                750091
<PP&E>                                          571846
<DEPRECIATION>                                  170410
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 4008364
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          2099063
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         13672
<OTHER-SE>                                     1895629
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   4008364
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               2898495
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               3284584
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                286992
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               22839
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (695920)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (695920)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (695920)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.06)
        


</TABLE>
Darrick LEE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D17-1198

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

April 5, 2018

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Alan T. Lipson, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Rachael Kaiman, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

Per Curiam.

*Affirmed.*

Ciklin, Conner and Forst, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 88 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. CON. RES. 88

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring),

SECTION 1. USE OF CAPITOL GROUNDS FOR SOAP BOX DERBY RACES.

    (a) In General.--The Greater Washington Soap Box Derby Association 
(in this resolution referred to as the ``sponsor'') shall be permitted 
to sponsor a public

              

 event, soap box derby races (in this resolution referred to as the 
``event''), on the Capitol Grounds.
    (b) Date of Event.--The event shall be held on June 18, 2022, or on 
such other date as the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the 
Committee on Rules and Administration of the Senate jointly designate.

SEC. 2. TERMS AND CONDITIONS.

    (a) In General.--Under conditions to be prescribed by the Architect 
of the Capitol and the Capitol Police Board, the event shall be--
            (1) free of admission charge and open to the public; and
            (2) arranged not to interfere with the needs of Congress.
    (b) Expenses and Liabilities.--The sponsor shall assume full 
responsibility for all expenses and liabilities incident to all 
activities associated with the event.

SEC. 3. EVENT PREPARATIONS.

    Subject to the approval of the Architect of the Capitol, the 
sponsor is authorized to erect upon the Capitol Grounds such stage, 
sound amplification devices, and other related structures and equipment 
as may be required for the event.

SEC. 4. ADDITIONAL ARRANGEMENTS.

    The Architect of the Capitol and the Capitol Police Board are 
authorized to make such additional arrangements as may be required to 
carry out the event.

SEC. 5. ENFORCEMENT OF RESTRICTIONS.

    The Capitol Police Board shall provide for enforcement of the 
restrictions contained in section 5104(c) of title 40, United States 
Code, concerning sales, advertisements, displays, and solicitations on 
the Capitol Grounds, as well as other restrictions applicable to the 
Capitol Grounds, with respect to the event.

            Passed the House of Representatives June 7, 2022.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
117th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                            H. CON. RES. 88

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 Authorizing the use of the Capitol Grounds for the Greater Washington 
                            Soap Box Derby.
```
Lloyd JOHNSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-236

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed March 7, 2018

Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Richard P. Albertine, Jr., Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

CASANUEVA, CRENSHAW, and SALARIO, JJ., Concur.
United States Court of Appeals 

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

May 20, 2020

Before

    MICHAEL B. BRENNAN, Circuit Judge

    MICHAEL Y. SCUDDER, Circuit Judge

    AMY J. ST. EVE, Circuit Judge

No. 19‐2289

CARLOS ALVAREZ‐ESPINO,                   

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General

of the United States,  

         Respondent.

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals.

No. A200‐557‐981

O R D E R

Petitioner filed a petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc on May 4, 2020. No

judge in regular active service has requested a vote on the petition for rehearing en banc

and all members of the original panel have voted to deny rehearing and to issue an

amended opinion. The court’s opinion dated March 6, 2020 is amended by the attached

opinion, which includes changes to pages 2, 5, and 8.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the petition for rehearing and rehearing en

banc is therefore DENIED.
Case: 2:18-cv-00966-EAS-EPD Doc #: 37 Filed: 02/11/19 Page: 1 of 10  PAGEID #: 284

Case: 2:18-cv-00966-EAS-EPD Doc #: 37 Filed: 02/11/19 Page: 2 of 10  PAGEID #: 285

Case: 2:18-cv-00966-EAS-EPD Doc #: 37 Filed: 02/11/19 Page: 3 of 10  PAGEID #: 286

Case: 2:18-cv-00966-EAS-EPD Doc #: 37 Filed: 02/11/19 Page: 4 of 10  PAGEID #: 287

Case: 2:18-cv-00966-EAS-EPD Doc #: 37 Filed: 02/11/19 Page: 5 of 10  PAGEID #: 288

Case: 2:18-cv-00966-EAS-EPD Doc #: 37 Filed: 02/11/19 Page: 6 of 10  PAGEID #: 289

Case: 2:18-cv-00966-EAS-EPD Doc #: 37 Filed: 02/11/19 Page: 7 of 10  PAGEID #: 290

Case: 2:18-cv-00966-EAS-EPD Doc #: 37 Filed: 02/11/19 Page: 8 of 10  PAGEID #: 291

Case: 2:18-cv-00966-EAS-EPD Doc #: 37 Filed: 02/11/19 Page: 9 of 10  PAGEID #: 292

Case: 2:18-cv-00966-EAS-EPD Doc #: 37 Filed: 02/11/19 Page: 10 of 10  PAGEID #: 293
Exhibit A 

Case: 2:18-cv-00190-MHW-CMV Doc #: 76-1 Filed: 06/12/20 Page: 1 of 4 PAGEID #: 980
From: Brian Murphy

To: McClellan, Rand L.

Cc: Vonderhaar, Douglas

Subject: Re: Charvat v. Southard and RbA

Date: Thursday, July 18, 2019 1:39:15 PM

Attachments: image004.jpg

image006.jpg

image008.jpg

Rand,

After speaking with the folks on our side I think we are good with this approach with the

caveat that we think it also makes sense to add the issue of the dialing

system to the exchange of information that happens in the first phase - some of that has been

produced in a redacted fashion and given our new cell phone Plaintiff

we think it would be beneficial to flush out that issue as well alongside consent since those

would both be essential to figuring out any potential resolution of the matter.

Let me know what you think or if you want to discuss further. Thanks.

Brian Murphy

murphy@mmmb.com

On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 9:51 AM McClellan, Rand L. <rmcclellan@bakerlaw.com> wrote:

Brian,

Quick follow up. Thoughts?

Rand

From: McClellan, Rand L. 

Sent: Monday, July 15, 2019 3:19 PM

To: murphy@mmmb.com

Cc: Vonderhaar, Douglas <dvonderhaar@bakerlaw.com>

Subject: Charvat v. Southard and RbA

Brian,

I spoke to Ben Picker, and he is willing to assist. In general, I see this mediation in

two phases. First, an exchange of information, primarily the information regarding

consents and EBRs. Second, the mediation itself. Note, no one is committed to

Case: 2:18-cv-00190-MHW-CMV Doc #: 76-1 Filed: 06/12/20 Page: 2 of 4 PAGEID #: 981
Case: 2:18-cv-00190-MHW-CMV Doc #: 76-1 Filed: 06/12/20 Page: 3 of 4 PAGEID #: 982
complete analysis of all relevant issues or authorities.

Internet communications are not assured to be secure or clear of

inaccuracies as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost,

destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. Therefore,

we do not accept responsibility for any errors or omissions that are

present in this email, or any attachment, that have arisen as a result

of e-mail transmission.

Case: 2:18-cv-00190-MHW-CMV Doc #: 76-1 Filed: 06/12/20 Page: 4 of 4 PAGEID #: 983
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains regulatory documents having general

applicability and legal effect, most of which

are keyed to and codified in the Code of

Federal Regulations, which is published under

50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by

the Superintendent of Documents. Prices of

new books are listed in the first FEDERAL

REGISTER issue of each week.

Rules and Regulations Federal Register

19461 

Vol. 79, No. 68 

Wednesday, April 9, 2014 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Agricultural Marketing Service 

7 CFR Part 905 

[Doc. No. AMS–FV–13–0009; FV13–905–2 

IR] 

Oranges, Grapefruit, Tangerines, and 

Tangelos Grown in Florida; Relaxing 

Size and Grade Requirements on 

Valencia and Other Late Type Oranges 

Correction 

■ In rule document 2013–11389 

beginning on page 28115 in the issue of 

Tuesday, May 14, 2013, make the 

following correction: 

§ 905.306 [Corrected] 

On page 28117, the table should read: 

TABLE I 

Variety Regulation period Minimum grade 

Minimum 

diameter 

(inches) 

(1) (2) (3) (4) 

*******

Valencia and other late type ..................... 08/01/2012–05/14/2013 ............................ U.S. No. 1 ................................................. 28⁄16

05/15/2013–06/14/2013 ............................ U.S. No. 1 Golden .................................... 24⁄16

06/15/2013–08/31/2013 ............................ U.S. No. 2, External; U.S. No. 1, Internal 24⁄16

On or after 09/01/13 

September 1–May 14 ............................... U.S. No. 1 ................................................. 28⁄16

May 15–June 14 ....................................... U.S. No. 1 ................................................. 24⁄16

June 15–July 31 ....................................... U.S. No. 2, External; U.S. No. 1, Internal 24⁄16

August 1–August 31 ................................. U.S. No. 1 ................................................. 24⁄16

* * * * * * * 

[FR Doc. C1–2013–11389 Filed 4–8–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 1505–01–D 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Fii FD RlCHARO^W-rmGO^

CLER'K OF tOUiil JohnL.O'Shea(0042291) Attorney for Defendant

JUL 1 AM 9- 58

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

FlFHiRyDm Wl6 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WEST olv CINCINHATI WESTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

PLAINTIFF,

CASE No. 1:18-CR-119

JUDGE MICHAEL R. BARRETT

SENTENCING MEMORANDUM

vs.

PAUL YANG,

DEFENDANT.

Defendant PaulYang ("Defendant"), through counsel, respectfully offers thissentencing

memorandum in response to the FinalPresentence Report ("PSR") submitted by the United

States Probation Office ("Probation").

Defendant understands that incarceration is a possible part of his ultimate sentence.

Probation recommends one day of incarceration. In consideration of the totality of the instant

facts and circumstances. Defendant submits the following.

Background Information

Defendant was a family physicianwith Lindenwald MedicalAssociates, Inc. ("LMA")

from about December 2007 to about April 2012. The conduct that served as the basis for the

charges in the instant case occurred during that time.

In 2018, Defendant was charged with Conspiracy to Commit Health Care Fraud in

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349. The scheme was orchestrated by LMA. Defendant was directed by

his superiors to bill Medicare and Medicaid for more than the work that was done. On September

21, 2018, Defendant pled guilty to the only charge against him.

Case: 1:18-cr-00119-MRB Doc #: 13 Filed: 07/14/20 Page: 1 of 6 PAGEID #: 28
Case: 1:18-cr-00119-MRB Doc #: 13 Filed: 07/14/20 Page: 2 of 6 PAGEID #: 29
Case: 1:18-cr-00119-MRB Doc #: 13 Filed: 07/14/20 Page: 3 of 6 PAGEID #: 30
Case: 1:18-cr-00119-MRB Doc #: 13 Filed: 07/14/20 Page: 4 of 6 PAGEID #: 31
Case: 1:18-cr-00119-MRB Doc #: 13 Filed: 07/14/20 Page: 5 of 6 PAGEID #: 32
Case: 1:18-cr-00119-MRB Doc #: 13 Filed: 07/14/20 Page: 6 of 6 PAGEID #: 33
Patrick PAPACH, a/k/a Patrick F. Papach, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-3733

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed February 28, 2018

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

SILBERMAN, VILLANTI, and BADALAMENTI, JJ., Concur.
1

More specifically, the district court held that, even if the defendant's decision was based in part on the

appellants' ages, the same decision would have been made in the absence of such discrimination for the

two reasons stated in the text. 

Robert P. DILLA, Hale P. Lane, Jr., et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

Togo D. WEST, Jr., Secretary, Department of the Army, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 98-6457.

United States Court of Appeals,

Eleventh Circuit.

July 8, 1999.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama. (No. CV-97-T-1003-N),

Myron H. Thompson, Judge.

Before TJOFLAT, DUBINA and HULL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

The appellants—Robert Dilla, Hale Lane, and Dennis Eason—applied for an air traffic controller

position with the United States Army. All three were rejected in favor of a substantially younger applicant,

Kevin Nolan. Subsequently, the appellants filed suit against the Secretary of the Army in federal district

court, alleging that the Army's refusal to hire them was based on age discrimination in violation of the Age

Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 621-634 (1994). After a bench trial, the district

court found that the appellants were rejected because (1) they would be eligible to retire much sooner than

Nolan and (2) they had achieved a higher pay grade than Nolan in previous employment, and therefore would

require a higher salary than Nolan in the air traffic controller position.1

 See Dilla v. West, 4 F.Supp.2d 1130,

1141-44 (M.D.Ala.1998), corrected by 31 F.Supp.2d 1347 (M.D.Ala.1999). Both of these factors are directly

correlated with age—older workers are generally (but not necessarily) closer to meeting federal retirement

criteria and further advanced in their pay grade than younger workers. The district court, however, relying

on Hazen Paper Co. v. Biggins, 507 U.S. 604, 113 S.Ct. 1701, 123 L.Ed.2d 338 (1993), concluded that "the
2

mere fact that there exists a perfect correlation, or even a direct link, between age and the factor purportedly

relied upon by the employer does not perforce mean that the employer has impermissibly relied on age."

Dilla, 4 F.Supp.2d at 1142-43. Consequently, the district court ruled in favor of the defendant.

 We agree with the district court's analysis of Hazen Paper: Reliance on factors correlated with age

does not by itself constitute age discrimination. To be sure, purported reliance on such factors may be a

pretext for discrimination; if so, the defendant has violated the ADEA. See id. at 1142. The district court,

however, concluded on the basis of substantial evidence that no such pretext was involved in this case. The

district court's judgment is therefore

AFFIRMED.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4510 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4510

To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to apply the ban on 
    contributions and expenditures by foreign nationals to domestic 
  corporations in which foreign principals have an ownership interest.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 26, 2010

 Mr. Grayson introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                   Committee on House Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to apply the ban on 
    contributions and expenditures by foreign nationals to domestic 
  corporations in which foreign principals have an ownership interest.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; FINDINGS.

    (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``America is for 
Americans Act''.
    (b) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
            (1) The Government has a compelling interest in preventing 
        foreign individuals and associations from influencing our 
        Nation's political process. Such entities neither enjoy nor 
        deserve any legal or constitutional right to such influence.
            (2) The presence of foreign individuals or associations 
        within domestic associations, to any degree, creates an 
        unacceptable risk of foreign influence over our Nation's 
        political process.
            (3) The law does not allow foreign individuals and 
        associations to vote in our elections; by the same token, the 
        law should not allow them to exercise any influence over our 
        Nation's political process, directly or indirectly, and neither 
        personally nor in alliance or combination with others.

SEC. 2. APPLICATION OF BAN ON CONTRIBUTIONS AND EXPENDITURES BY FOREIGN 
              NATIONALS TO DOMESTIC CORPORATIONS WITH FOREIGN 
              OWNERSHIP.

    Section 319(b) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 
U.S.C. 441e(b)) is amended--
            (1) by striking ``or'' at the end of paragraph (1);
            (2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (2) and 
        inserting ``; or''; and
            (3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
            ``(3) a corporation (other than a foreign principal, as so 
        defined) in which one or more foreign principals directly or 
        indirectly has an ownership interest.''.
                                 <all>
```
Dale PATE, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-0211

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

January 25, 2018

BY ORDER OF THE COURT:

Petitioner's petition for writ of prohibition is denied.

NORTHCUTT, BLACK, and SALARIO, JJ., Concur.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Case No.l! V8 ~ c... t2.. - \ O~

vs. "

Judge Timothy S. Black

Defendant.

WAIVER OF IN-PERSON APPEARANCE

AND NOTICE OF CONSENT TO VIDEO OR TELECONFERENCE

I, S~-\~ Wq(\l , am the defendant in the abovecaptioned criminal case, and I am advised that my case will be scheduled for a

C~~ D~ \0\..o~ hearing before the Court. I acknowledge and understand

that I have a right to appear at the hearing in person and in the physical presence of my

attorney.

Having thoroughly consulted with my attorney, I hereby waive my right to appear

at the hearing in person and I further consent to proceed with the hearing by video or

teleconference. I understand that my attorney will also appear at the hearing by video or

teleconference and that my attorney will therefore not be in my physical presence during

the hearing. I understand that I will have the opportunity to consult with my attorney

privately by telephone before, during, and/or after the hearing, if! so choose and upon

my request. If! wish to consult with my attorney privately during the hearing, I

understand that I will need to make my request known to the Court at that time and that

all reasonable efforts will be made to honor my request. I further understand that, during

the video or teleconference hearing, I have the right to address the Court and to otherwise

participate, as ifI had appeared in person.

I acknowledge and understand that all reasonable efforts have been and will be

made to ensure that no technological issues arise during the course of the video or

Case: 1:18-cr-00109-TSB Doc #: 163 Filed: 11/16/20 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: 843
teleconference hearing. However, in the event that any such issues should occur, I

understand that the Court will in no way hold those issues against me and will

immediately undertake efforts to adequately resolve the issue or, if the issue cannot be

adequately resolved and/or is causing interference with the proceedings, the Court will

reschedule the hearing. Accordingly, I waive any objections I may have based upon any

such technological issues.

I understand that by signing this document, I am waiving my right to appear for

hearing before the Court in person and consenting to proceed by video or teleconference,

as fully set forth above. I affmn that I have thoroughly discussed this decision with my

attorney, that I am fully satisfied with my attorney's advice and representation in that

regard, that I have read this document in its entirety, and that I am executing this

document voluntarily and with a full understanding of the rights and privileges that I

hereby waive.

Defendant

Print: s'f..\\{ t()£.U\T

Date: ~O\J \~, 7JJ)w

-----------7-----

Print:

2

Case: 1:18-cr-00109-TSB Doc #: 163 Filed: 11/16/20 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: 844