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

IMPERIAL COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

May 12,2014
TheHonorable AnthonyFoxx, Secretary U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200NewJersey Avenue, SE Washington, DC 20590 1405 N. IMPERIAL AVE., SUITE 1 ELCENTRO, CA 92243-2875 PHONE: (760) 592-4494

FAX: (760) 592-4497

RE: DocketDOT-OST-2008-0299 Dear SecretaryFoxx, On behalfofthe Imperial County Transportation Commission, I write to request reconsideration ofthe Department of Transportations' Tentative Orderto terminate the Essential Air Service (EAS) program in El Centro, California located in Imperial County. Please consider the negative economic impacts that may occur as a result of the proposed termination oftheprogram. The Imperial County Airport has a tremendous track record ofsurpassing the EAS program requirements put forth by the government, as they have dramatically exceeded the enplanement minimum in four ofthe last five fiscal years. Unfortunately, in FY 2013, the Imperial County Airport barely fell below the ten enplanement threshold, by reaching 9.5 enplanements forthe first time. As you know, the Essential Air Service was put into place to guarantee that small communities, including those within the Imperial County, continue to be served by certified air carriers. Overthe last several years, Imperial County has and continues to experience one ofthe highest unemployment rates in the nation. It is also important to note that 23% of our County population lives below the poverty level (U.S. Census Bureau, 2012). The EAS program is vital to our economy, please consider all factors before terminating a much-needed program in the region. As you prepare the Final Order, please also consider the Imperial Valley's track record overthe last three fiscal years. Please consider the void that will be left should the Department ofTransportation ultimately decide to terminate the much-needed EAS program currently in effect atthe Imperial County Airport. Thankyou foryourtime and consideration ofmy request. Sincerely,

Executive Director

CITIES OF BRAWLEY, CALEXICO, CALIPATRIA, EL CENTRO, HOLTVILLE, IMPERIAL,WESTMORLAND, IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DISTRICT AND COUNTY OF IMPERIAL
T: Projects\ICTC Correspondencelsupport lcttcr-EAS El Centro
-81 -80 -79 -78 -77 -76 -75

38 39 40 41



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 500 1000 1500 500 18 12 06 00 08/07 

### NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

## Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 07 Aug 07

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 38.92 N 77.01 WMeters AGL
STATE of Louisiana v. Kevin Dale DAIGLE

No. 2018-KD-0634

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 30, 2018

*ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE FOURTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF CALCASIEU*

PER CURIAM

Writ granted; stay lifted.

In **Rippo v. Baker** , 239 U.S. 807, 137 S.Ct. 905, 907, 197 L.Ed.2d 167 (2017), the United States Supreme Court recently ruled that "[r]ecusal is required when, objectively speaking, the probability of actual bias on the part of the judge or decisionmaker is too high to be constitutionally tolerable." (internal quotes omitted). This court has very recently examined the **Rippo** recusal standard in **State v. LaCaze** , 16-0234 (La. 3/13/18), 239 So.3d. 807, 2018 WL 1281112, and observed that under **Rippo's** mandate, "evidence of actual bias is not necessary to require recusal."

*1000**La****Caze** , 16-0234, p. 10, 239 So.3d. at 813. In other words, recusal may be required as a constitutional safeguard against the risk of bias and, because the defendant here faces the possibility of a death sentence, every reasonable effort must be made to ensure constitutional safeguards are met.

The record here demonstrates that the trial judge had a longtime working relationship with Mrs. Vincent, the victim's widow and a court employee; has a social media relationship with Mrs. Vincent that he initially denied in a formal opinion, but later admitted under oath; and has taken steps barred by the Code of Criminal Procedure which, if not corrected by the appellate court, would have thwarted another judge from considering his recusal. Mrs. Vincent is not only the victim's widow, she is designated as a penalty phase witness in this capital case.

Another judge allotted to hear the recusal motion referred to some of the events surrounding the recusal procedure as "very odd," and commented, "I still don't quite understand why these things happened."

Perhaps, if viewed in isolation, any one of these facts would not be sufficient to require recusal. However, viewed collectively, this record satisfies both prongs of proof required by this court in **LaCaze** . First, "[t]he **Rippo** standard clearly requires proof that an appearance of bias gives rise to a 'probability of actual bias,' also referred to as a 'risk of bias' or 'potential for bias.' " **LaCaze** , 16-234 at 13, 239 So.3d. at 816. "Secondly, the defendant must prove that the probability of actual bias rises to a level that 'is too high to be constitutionally tolerable' under the circumstances." ***Id.*** Thus, the trial judge must be recused.

We hasten to add that there has been no allegation or showing that the trial judge harbors any actual bias or that he is not a diligent district court judge. However, on these unique facts, the standard recently enunciated by the Supreme Court dictates recusal on this matter.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

SERGHEI VERLAN (2)

AKHLIDDIN KALONOV (7),

Defendants.

Case No. 1:18-cr-109

JUDGE DOUGLAS R. COLE

CALENDAR ORDER

This matter shall proceed as follows:

Pretrial Motions,

including Motions In Limine February 17, 2022

Proposed Jury Instructions & Verdict Forms1 February 21, 2022

Responses to Pretrial Motions March 3, 2022

Objections to Proposed Jury Instructions &

Verdict Forms March 7, 2022

Trial Briefs (if any) March 8, 2022

Proposed Witness Lists & Exhibit Lists2 March 9, 2022

Replies to Pretrial Motions March 10, 2022

Exhibit Binders3 March 22, 2022

1 Proposed jury instructions and verdict forms must be filed on the docket and also emailed 

in Word format to Chambers at Cole_Chambers@ohsd.uscourts.gov. 

2 Proposed witness and exhibit lists must be emailed, in Word format, to Chambers at 

Cole_Chambers@ohsd.uscourts.gov, and may be submitted ex parte. To the extent 

possible, please list witnesses in the anticipated order of presentation. 

3 The Court requires: (1) the original set of all exhibits (witness’ exhibit binder); (2) one 

complete hard-copy set of all exhibits (Judge Cole’s courtesy exhibit binder); and (3) one set 

of all exhibits in electronic format, saved to a USB flash drive or sent in a zip file via email 

to Cole_Chambers@ohsd.uscourts.gov (law clerk’s exhibit binder). The original and Judge’s 

Case: 1:18-cr-00109-DRC Doc #: 218 Filed: 10/19/21 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: 1368
2 

Final Pretrial Conference March 22, 2022, at 12:30 p.m.

Courtroom to be determined

Jury Trial April 5, 2022, at 9:30 a.m.

Courtroom to be determined

The Defendants requested a continuance of this case through the trial date set 

forth above. The Court finds that the ends of justice served by granting the requested 

continuance outweigh the best interest of the public and Defendants in a speedy trial, 

pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 3161(h)(7)(A), (B)(i), as failure to grant the continuance 

would deprive the defendants of the opportunity to file motions and prepare for trial, 

and thus likely would result in a miscarriage of justice. 

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds the period of time elapsing from 

October 19, 2021, until April 5, 2022, is properly, and shall be, excluded from the 

speedy trial calculation. 

SO ORDERED. 

October 19, 2021

DATE DOUGLAS R. COLE

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

copy of the exhibits must be pre-marked and organized sequentially in tabbed, three-ring 

binders. All three sets must be delivered to Chambers in Room 810. Counsel will not be 

permitted to add or change any exhibits after the deadline, unless counsel provides the Court 

with the new or amended exhibits, in all three formats, and amended exhibit lists, before the 

Court reconvenes.

Case: 1:18-cr-00109-DRC Doc #: 218 Filed: 10/19/21 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: 1369
Steven MERCER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-2155

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 15, 2018

Steven Mercer, pro se, Appellant.

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

Per Curiam.

AFFIRMED .

B.L. Thomas, C.J., and Makar and Winokur, JJ., concur.
----

----

----

----

----

| If to Employer: CytRx Corporation11726 San Vicente Boulevard, Suite 650Los Angeles, California  90049Facsimile:                  (310) 826-5529Attention:                  Chief Executive Officer |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|  If to Employee: ______________________________________________________                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                |

----

|   | “EMPLOYER” CytRx Corporation  By:/s/ STEVEN A. KRIEGSMAN                                                               Steven A. KriegsmanPresident and Chief Executive Officer |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |  “EMPLOYEE”  /s/ SCOTT WIELAND                                                               Scott Wieland                                                                      |
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT B RIAN A. SM ITH, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. R ANDY GR OUNDS, W arde n; e t a l., De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 12-17768 D.C . No. 2:11-c v-01410-EFB M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Ea ste rn Distric t of C a lifornia Edm und F. B re nna

n, M a gistra

te Judge , Pre siding ** Subm itte d Nove m

be r 19, 2013 * ** B e fore : C ANB Y, TR OTT, a nd THOM AS, C irc uit Judge s. Form e r C a lifornia

sta te prisone r B rian A. Sm ith a ppe a ls pro sefrom

the distric t c o urt’ s judgm e nt dismissing his 42 U.S.C . § 1983 a c tion a lle ging tha t 

# FIL ED D EC 11 2013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** Sm ith c onse nte d to proc e e d be fore a m a gistra te judge . Se e28 U.S.C . § 636(c ).

*** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).de fe nda

nts viola te d his Eighth a

nd Fourte e nth Am e ndm e nt rights. W e have jurisdic tion under 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie w de novo thedistric t c ourt’ s dism issa l unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1915A. Re snic k v . Hay e s , 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th C ir. 2000). W e a ffirm . The distric t c ourt prope rly dismisse d Sm ith’ s a c tion be c a u se Sm i th fa ile d to a lle ge suffic ie nt fa c ts in his Fourth Am e n de d C om

p la int showing tha

t de fe n da nts viola te d his c onstitutiona

l rights. Se eAshc roft v . Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (a pla intiff m

ust a lle g e fa c ts tha

t “ a llow[] the c ourt to dra w the re a sona

ble infe re n c e tha

t the de fe nda

nt is lia ble for the m isc onduc t

a l le ge d” ); se ealso Sandin v . C onne r , 515 U.S. 472, 483-84 (1995) (prote c te d libe rty or prope rty

inte re st only arise s unde r Due Proc e ss C la use whe n a

re stra int im

pose s a n “ aty pic a l a nd signific ant ha

rdship on the

inm ate in re lation to the

ordina ry inc i de nts of prison life ” ); Farme r v . Bre n nan , 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994) (for a de libe rate indiffe re nc e c la im , “ the offic ia l m

ust both be

aware of fa c ts from

whic h the infe re nc e c ould be drawn tha t a substa ntia l risk of se rious ha

rm e xists, a nd he m ust a lso dra

w the infe re n c e ” ); Starr v . Bac a , 652 F.3d 1202, 1207 (9th C ir. 2011) (e le m e nts for supe rvisory

lia bility unde r § 1983). W e do not c onside r a l l e gations ra ise d for the first tim e on a

ppe a l . Se e

1 2 - 1 7 7 6 8 2Padge tt v . W right , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th C ir. 2009) (pe r c uriam ). AFFIRM E D.

1 2 - 1 7 7 6 8 3
```

[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 23 (Thursday, February 3, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6194-6195]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-02257]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4525-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2022-0001]

Utah; Amendment No. 8 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the State of Utah (FEMA-4525-DR), dated April 4, 2020, and related 
determinations.

DATES: This change occurred on January 7, 2021.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and 
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW, 
Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency 
(FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the 
Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Nancy J. 
Dragani, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating 
Officer for this disaster.
    This action terminates the appointment of Tammy L. Littrell as 
Federal Coordinating Officer for this disaster.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, 
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis 
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster 
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance 
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and 
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, 
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing 
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially 
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other 
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance

[[Page 6195]]

(Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation 
Grant.

Deanne Criswell,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2022-02257 Filed 2-2-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
```
Exhibit 32.2

THE FOLLOWING  CERTIFICATION  ACCOMPANIES AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO THE ISSUER'S ANNUAL
REPORT ON FORM 10-KSB AND IS NOT FILED, AS PROVIDED IN SEC RELEASE NOS. 33-8238,
34-47986 AND IC-26068, DATED JUNE 5, 2003.

                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  Amendment  No.  2 to  Annual  Report  on  Form  10-KSB  of
BrandPartners Group, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2002 as filed with the
Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof (the  "Report"),  the
undersigned, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.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 results of operations of the Company.

                                        By: /s/ Sharon Burd
                                            -----------------------------------
                                            Sharon Burd
                                            Chief Financial Officer

                                            August 25, 2003

A SIGNED  ORIGINAL OF THIS  WRITTEN  STATEMENT  REQUIRED BY SECTION 906 HAS BEEN
PROVIDED TO THE ISSUER AND WILL BE RETAINED BY THE ISSUER AND  FURNISHED  TO THE
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OR ITS STAFF UPON REQUEST.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1071 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1071

  To amend the Help America Vote Act of 2002 to prohibit States from 
    using a voting system which is connected to the Internet in the 
           administration of an election for Federal office.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 15, 2021

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Help America Vote Act of 2002 to prohibit States from 
    using a voting system which is connected to the Internet in the 
           administration of an election for Federal office.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Election Technology Integrity and 
Fraud Prevention Act''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITING CONNECTION OF VOTING SYSTEMS TO INTERNET.

    (a) Prohibition.--Section 301(a) of the Help America Vote Act of 
2002 (52 U.S.C. 21081(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following 
new paragraph:
            ``(7) Prohibiting connection of system to the internet.--
                    ``(A) In general.--No system or device upon which 
                ballots are programmed or votes are cast or tabulated 
                shall be connected to the Internet at any time.
                    ``(B) Prohibiting acceptance of ballots transmitted 
                online.--The voting system may not directly tabulate 
                any voted ballot which is transmitted to an election 
                official online.
                    ``(C) Rule of construction.--Nothing contained in 
                this paragraph shall be deemed to prohibit the 
                Commission from conducting the studies under section 
                242 or to conduct other similar studies under any other 
                provision of law in a manner consistent with this 
                paragraph.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--Section 301(d) of such Act (52 U.S.C. 
21081(d)) is amended by striking the period at the end and inserting 
the following: ``, or, in the case of the requirements of paragraph (7) 
of subsection (a), on and after January 1, 2022.''.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 77 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. J. RES. 77

Proposing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of the United 
                                States.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 17, 2022

 Mr. Arrington (for himself, Mr. Duncan, and Mr. Ellzey) submitted the 
following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the 
                               Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
Proposing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of the United 
                                States.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled   (two-thirds of each House 
concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an 
amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be 
valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 
ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States:

                              ``Article--

    ``Section 1. Total expenditures for a year shall not exceed the 
average annual revenue collected in the three prior years, adjusted in 
proportion to changes in population and inflation. Total expenditures 
shall include all expenditures of the United States except those for 
payment of debt, and revenue shall include all revenue of the United 
States except that derived from borrowing.
    ``Section 2. Congress may by a roll call vote of two-thirds of each 
House declare an emergency and provide by law for specific expenditures 
in excess of the limit in section 1. The declaration shall specify 
reasons for the emergency designation and may authorize expenditures in 
excess of the limit in section 1 for up to one year.
    ``Section 3. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by 
appropriate legislation.
    ``Section 4. This article shall take effect in the first year 
beginning at least 90 days following ratification, except that 
expenditures may exceed the limit in section 1 by the following portion 
of the prior year's expenditures exceeding that limit (excepting 
emergency expenditures provided for by section 2): nine-tenths in the 
first year, eight-ninths in the second, seven-eighths in the third, 
six-sevenths in the fourth, five-sixths in the fifth, four-fifths in 
the sixth, three-fourths in the seventh, two-thirds in the eighth, and 
one-half in the ninth.''.
                                 <all>
```