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

<ARTICLE> 7
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                         2,861,233
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                          983,044
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                                  0
<EQUITIES>                                   1,615,579
<MORTGAGE>                                      45,228
<REAL-ESTATE>                                        0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                               6,147,331
<CASH>                                       3,461,408
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                           1,630,815
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                         993,696
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              15,345,849
<POLICY-LOSSES>                              2,366,196
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                          3,042,649
<POLICY-OTHER>                               1,899,257
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                                0
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                              1,370,612
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         5,763
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                15,345,849
<PREMIUMS>                                   1,738,458
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                             97,993
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                              66,177
<OTHER-INCOME>                                 224,874
<BENEFITS>                                     352,420
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                    365,460
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                         1,089,130
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                320,492
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   320,492
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .06
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                       0
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                                  0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                    0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                                   0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                     0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                      0
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                              0
        

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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE 
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF LINCARE HOLDINGS, INC. FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED 
SEPTEMBER 30, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH 
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           3,432
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   69,315
<ALLOWANCES>                                     6,710
<INVENTORY>                                      1,887
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                68,383
<PP&E>                                         190,371
<DEPRECIATION>                                  77,130
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 419,540
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           31,089
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           285
<OTHER-SE>                                     371,175
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   419,540
<SALES>                                        324,486
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               324,486
<CGS>                                           48,854
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   48,854
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               168,314
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 3,245
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 924
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                106,417
<INCOME-TAX>                                    40,971
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             65,446
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    65,446
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.24
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.24
        


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-7669

AARON HOLSEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PAUL DAVIS, Individually and as Chairperson ofthe Maryland Parole Board; BLOUNT, Individually and as Commissioner with the ParoleCommission; MARYLAND PAROLE COMMISSION; MARYLAND DIVISION OF CORRECTION-PERSONNEL AND OFFICIALS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge. (CA-96-3989-JFM) Submitted: October 20, 1998 Decided: November 3, 1998 Before WILKINS and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Aaron Holsey, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., AttorneyGeneral, Wendy Ann Kronmiller, Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland; Susan Lynn Howe, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.2 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Aaron Holsey appeals the district court’s orders denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1998) complaint and denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Holsey v. Davis , No. CA-96-3989-JFM (D. Md. Sept. 9 and Oct. 9, 1997). 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.

AFFIRMED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, : Case No. 3:18-cr-112
Plaintiff, : District Judge Walter H. Rice
Magistrate Judge Sharon L. Ovington
vs.

JIMMY L. WEBB, JR.,
Defendant.

DECISION AND ENTRY

This matter came before the Court for hearing on September 25, 2018 before
United States Magistrate Judge Sharon L. Ovington, who thereafter issued a Report and
Recommendations. (Doc. #22). Having conducted a full colloquy with Defendant, the
Magistrate Judge concluded that his plea of guilty is knowing, intelligent, and voluntary,
and that there is an adequate factual basis for a finding him guilty as charged in the
Information pending against him in this case.

The Court, noting that no Objections to the Report and Recommendations have
been filed and that the time for filing Objections has expired, hereby ADOPTS in full
said Report and Recommendations.

Therefore, based on the aforesaid, and this Court’s de novo review of the record
and the findings by the United States Magistrate Judge, this Court adopts the findings and

recommendations of the United State Magistrate Judge, and finds that Defendant’s guilty


plea was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent. Final acceptance of Defendant’s guilty plea

is deferred pending review of the pre-sentence investigation report.

H-2G-VH 1
Walter H. Rice
United States District Judge
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION 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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Lincare Holdings Inc. (the Company) for the quarter ended September 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), I, Paul G. Gabos, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify to the best of my knowledge and belief, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:



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



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



By:

/S/ PAUL G. GABOSPaul G. Gabos Chief Financial Officer


November 6, 2008
EXHIBIT 32

                            CERTIFICATION 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 of Defense Technology Systems, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ended June 30, 2004, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report'), we,
Daniel McPhee, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Philip
J. Rauch, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

(1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
     of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

/s/ Daniel McPhee
----------------------------
Daniel McPhee, President and
Chief Executive Officer
July 26, 2005

/s/ Philip J. Rauch
--------------------------------
Philip J. Rauch, Chief Financial
Officer
July 26, 2005
Case: 1:18-cv-00591-SJD Doc #: 8 Filed: 08/23/18 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: 82
Case: 1:18-cv-00591-SJD Doc #: 8 Filed: 08/23/18 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: 83
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS

BOARD,

Applicant, Case No. 3:18-mc-2

vs.

FUYAO GLASS AMERICA, INC., District Judge Thomas M. Rose

Magistrate Judge Michael J. Newman

Respondent.

______________________________________________________________________________

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION1 THAT: (1) APPLICANT’S MOTION TO 

WITHDRAW (DOC. 5) BE GRANTED; AND (2) THIS CASE BE TERMINATED ON 

THE COURT’S DOCKET

______________________________________________________________________________

This miscellaneous case is presently before the Court on the National Labor Relations 

Board’s (“NLRB”) motion to withdraw its application seeking enforcement of a subpoena duces 

tecum. Doc. 5. For good cause shown, and absent opposition, the undersigned RECOMMENDS

that the NLRB’s motion to withdraw (doc. 5) be GRANTED and this case be TERMINATED

on the Court’s docket.

Date: August 30, 2018 s/ Michael J. Newman

Michael J. Newman

United States Magistrate Judge

 

1 Attached hereto is a NOTICE to the parties regarding objections to this Report and 

Recommendation. 
NOTICE REGARDING OBJECTIONS

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), any party may serve and file specific, written objections 

to the proposed findings and recommendations within FOURTEEN days after being served with 

this Report and Recommendation. This period is not extended by virtue of Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d) if 

served on you by electronic means, such as via the Court’s CM/ECF filing system. If, however, 

this Report and Recommendation was served upon you by mail, this deadline is extended to 

SEVENTEEN DAYS by application of Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d). Parties may seek an extension of the 

deadline to file objections by filing a motion for extension, which the Court may grant upon a 

showing of good cause. 

Any objections filed shall specify the portions of the Report and Recommendation objected 

to, and shall be accompanied by a memorandum of law in support of the objections. If the Report 

and Recommendation is based, in whole or in part, upon matters occurring of record at an oral 

hearing, the objecting party shall promptly arrange for the transcription of the record, or such 

portions of it as all parties may agree upon or the Magistrate Judge deems sufficient, unless the 

assigned District Judge otherwise directs. 

A party may respond to another party’s objections within FOURTEEN days after being 

served with a copy thereof. As noted above, this period is not extended by virtue of Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 6(d) if served on you by electronic means, such as via the Court’s CM/ECF filing system. If, 

however, this Report and Recommendation was served upon you by mail, this deadline is extended 

to SEVENTEEN DAYS by application of Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d). 

Failure to make objections in accordance with this procedure may forfeit rights on appeal. 

See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 153-55 (1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 949-50 

(6th Cir. 1981).
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 05-3189

___________ James Johnson, also known as Seifullah * Aziz Ali Diaab, *
* Appellant, *
* v. * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Gregory Harmon, Warden, Arkansas * Eastern District of Arkansas. Department of Correction; Justine * Minor, Major Disciplinary Hearing * Officer, Arkansas Department of * [UNPUBLISHED] Correction; J. D. Kleiner, Field * Major, Arkansas Department of * Correction; Robert Clark, Major * Disciplinary Hearing Officer * Administrator, Arkansas Department * of Correction; Larry Norris, Director, * Arkansas Department of Correction; * K. Waddle, Major Disciplinary Hearing * Officer, Arkansas Department of * Correction; V. Kelly, Correctional * Officer II, Maximum Security Unit * at Tucker, Arkansas Department of * Correction; Ray Hobbs, Deputy * Assistant Director, Arkansas * Department of Correction; Rick L. * Toney, Warden, Arkansas Department * of Correction; F. Preston, Ms., Unit * Property Control Officer, Varner Unit, * Arkansas Department of Correction; * Freyder, Mr., Chaplain, Arkansas * Department of Correction, *
* Appellees. *1 The Honorable J. Leon Holmes, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, adop ting the report and recommendations of the Honorable J. Thomas Ray, United States Magi strate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.
-2- ___________ Submitted: November 1, 2006 Filed: November 14, 2006

___________ Before SMITH, MAGILL, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Arkansas inmate James Johnson filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against employees of the Arkansas Department of Correction, allegi ng he was denied due process, equal protection, and freedom of religion. The district court 1 dismissed the action following an evidentiary hearing.

Because Johnson did not make a jury demand, we review the district court’s factual findings for clear error and its conclusions of law de novo. See Choate v. Lockhart , 7 F.3d 1370, 1373 & n.1 (8th Cir. 1993). After careful review of the record, we find no error in the district court’s well-reasoned decision, and we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________
U.S. Department of Transportation Office ofthe Secretary ofTransportation Assistant Secretary April 27, 2012
The Honorable Enrique H. Questell Alvarado Mayor ofSantaIsabel Hostos Num. 3 SantaIsabel, PR 00757-2643
DearMayor Questell Alvarado: 

### i

### l ?I !(): 

## 11 1200 NewJersey Avenue, SE Washington, DC 20590

Thank you for your letter to Secretary ofTransportation Ray LaHood, supportingthe application ofJetBlue Airways for beyond-perimeter slot exemptions at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport (DCA). JetBlue's application proposes to serve Luis Munoz MarinAirport, Puerto Rico, with one round trip per day from DCA. Secretary LaHood asked meto respond to your letter.
Under authority granted inthe FAA Modernization and Reform Act of2012, the U.S. Department ofTransportation will be awarding to new entrant or limited incumbent carriers a total ofeight slot exemptions at DCA, which would support four daily round trips. · We received JetBlue's application, which also proposes one daily round trip to Austin, Texas, on March 12. Othertimely applications were received from Air Canada, proposing oneroundtrip to Vancouver, British Columbia; Alaska Airlines, one round trip to Portland, Oregon, and one round trip to San Diego; Frontier Airlines, one round trip to Colorado Springs and beyondto San Diego; Southwest Airlines, one round trip to Austin and San Diego beyond; SuJirCountry Airlines, one round trip to Las Vegas; and Virgin America, Inc., two round trips 'to San Francisco.
As the matter is still pending, I cannot comment onthe merits ofthe points raised in your letter. However, I can assure youthat all applications the Departmentreceived will be given full and fair consideration and will be evaluated against the selection criteria specified inthe statute. The Department's action onthis matter is being administered through a public docket, which allows all interested parties the opportunityto comment. Following our normal practice, I am placing a copy ofyour letter andthis response in docket number DQT-2012-0029.
I appreciate your interest inthis matter. Sincerely yours,

Susan 

### L Kurland Assistant Secretary.for Aviation and International Affairs
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 72 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. J. RES. 72

  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
   United States Code, of the rule submitted by Centers for Disease 
 Control and Prevention relating to ``Requirement for Persons To Wear 
        Masks While on Conveyances and at Transportation Hubs''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 18, 2022

Mr. Bishop of North Carolina (for himself, Mr. Mast, Mr. Rosendale, Mr. 
 Biggs, Mrs. Boebert, Mr. Perry, Mr. Tiffany, Mr. Posey, Mr. Pfluger, 
Mr. Massie, Ms. Van Duyne, Mr. Huizenga, Mr. Loudermilk, Mr. Gibbs, Mr. 
  Norman, Mrs. Miller of Illinois, Mr. Good of Virginia, Mr. Hice of 
    Georgia, Mr. Gohmert, Ms. Tenney, and Mr. Duncan) submitted the 
  following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on 
                          Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
   United States Code, of the rule submitted by Centers for Disease 
 Control and Prevention relating to ``Requirement for Persons To Wear 
        Masks While on Conveyances and at Transportation Hubs''.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress disapproves the 
rule submitted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 
relating to ``Requirement for Persons To Wear Masks While on 
Conveyances and at Transportation Hubs'' (86 Fed. Reg. 8025 (February 
3, 2021); determined through a letter of opinion from the Government 
Accountability Office dated December 14, 2021, and printed in the 
Congressional Record on December 15, 2021, on pages S9206-S9208, that 
the order is a rule under the Congressional Review Act), and such rule 
shall have no force or effect.
                                 <all>
```
Robert BIFANI, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. Carol BIFANI, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D17-1285

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

OCTOBER 09, 2017

ORDERED that appellant's notice of voluntary dismissal is recognized by the Court, and this appeal from the Circuit Court for Monroe County, Florida is hereby dismissed.
ex10.htm


    Exhibit
10.1

    


    FOURTH
AMENDMENT TO

    EMPLOYMENT
AGREEMENT

    


    This
FOURTH AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (this "Fourth Amendment") is entered
into on March 23, 2009, by and between Wynn Resorts, Limited (“Employer”) and John Strzemp
("Employee").  Capitalized
terms that are not defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to them in
the Agreement (as defined below).

     

    RECITALS

     

    WHEREAS,
Employer and Employee have entered into that certain Employment Agreement, dated
as of August 31, 2005, as amended by that certain First Amendment to Employment
Agreement, dated as of March 26, 2008, as further amended by that certain Second
Amendment to Employment Agreement, dated as of December 31, 2008, and as further
amended by that certain Amendment to Employment Agreement, dated February 12,
2009 (collectively, the "Agreement"); and

     

    WHEREAS,
Employer is willing and Employee desires to modify certain terms and conditions
to the Agreement as more fully set forth herein;

     

    NOW,
THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and the respective representations,
warranties, covenants and agreements set forth in this Amendment, the parties
hereto agree as follows:

     

    1.           Term.  Section
6 of the Agreement is amended to provide that the Term shall expire on March 31,
2013.

    


    2.           Base
Salary.  Section 8(a) of the Agreement is amended to provide
that effective March 6, 2009, Base Salary paid to Employee shall be Six Hundred
Fifty Thousand Dollars ($650,000) per annum.

    


    3.           Other Provisions of
Agreement.  The parties acknowledge that the Agreement is being
modified only as stated herein, and agree that nothing else in the Agreement
shall be affected by this Fourth Amendment.

    


    IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Fourth Amendment to be
executed as of the date first written above.

     

    
      	
              WYNN
      RESORTS, LIMITED

            	
              EMPLOYEE

            
	 
      	 
      
	
              By:
      /s/ Marc D.
      Schorr__________

            	
              /s/ John
      Strzemp_________________

            
	
                    
      Marc D. Schorr

            	
              John
      Strzemp

            
	
                    
      Chief Operating Officer
John O. WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-997

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 21, 2018 Rehearing Denied April 27, 2018

John O. Williams, pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Anne C. Conley, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

AFFIRMED .

Lewis, Osterhaus, and Bilbrey, JJ., concur.