alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
COMMITTEE ON DON YOUNG NATURAL RESOURCES CONGRESSM AN FOR A LL A LASKA 

WASHINGTON OFFICE: CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITIEE ON 

2314 RAYBURN BUILDING INDIAN AND ALASKA NATIVE AFFAIRS 

WASHINGTON, DC 20515 

202-225-5765 COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION & INFRASTRUCTURE 

REPUBLICAN 

QIongr£ss of Hfc ~ltitdt ~tzt te £j POLICY COMMITTEE 

~llu$e of ~ep .e.senhttwe 5 

?Jt1 C1sljington, ~.(tl. 211515 

October 6, 2014 

Lauralyn (Laura) J, Remo 

DOT, Office of Aviation Analysis, Air Carrier Fitness Division, X-56 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

Washington D.C. 20590 

REF: DOT -OST-20l4-0l4S 

Dear Ms. Remo: 

I am writing in reference to Harris Air Application for a Certificate of Public Convenience and 

Necessity. Harris Air has been providing Alaska intra-state air since 1999 providing services 

between numerous communities in the Southeast Alaska region, including long-standing 

Essential Air Service (EAS) in one market. 

As is common with any number of Alaska intra-state Part 135 operators which have over the 

years applied for DOT inter-state Certificates but where the essential nature of their intra-state 

scheduled operations will actually remain unchanged after certification, there will similarly be no 

change in Harris Air's FAA Part-135-authorized intra-state scheduled operations. As set forth in 

its application, Harris Air's existing intra-state operations in this Southeast region of Alaska will 

continue as currently operated. 

Harris Air has remained in good standing and provides a much needed service to Southeast 

Alaska. As the only Congressman in Alaska, I frequently must travel throughout the State 

utilizing air service as very few roads exist statewide. As I have always stated, the skies are our 

highways in Alaska and Harris Air has been a stalwart carrier that many Alaskans rely upon. 

Not only does the certification allow Harris Air to grow the market, but more importantly, will 

allow much better support and service to several communities within Southeast Alaska. This is a 

much needed and welcomed service for all of the Southeast communities for mail, medical 

transport, and supplies. 

Due to the aforementioned reasons, I am asking that you carefully review the application and 

award the Certificate as I believe that Harris Air has presented a very strong case for approval 

and will move forward with improving the transportation system in Southeast Alaska. 

4241 B STREET 100 CUSHMAN STREET, SUITE 307 612 W. W,LLOUGHBY AVENUE, SUITE B 805 FRONTAGE ROAD 

SUITE 203 P.O. Box 73110 P.o. Box 21247 SUITE 110 

VISIT OUR WEBSITE ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99503 FAI RBANKS, ALASKA 99707 JUNEAU, ALASKA 99802 KEN AI, ALASKA 99611 CALL TOLL-FR EE 

HTIP:/I00N YOU NG.HOU5E.GOV 907-271 - 5978 907-45&-0210 907-58&-7400 907-283-7701 1--B6&-99(}-5979 
Thank you for your time and consideration.
JUNG HYUN CHANG, Appellant, v. Richard K. FUEYO and Trenam, Kemker, Scharf, Barkin, Frye, O'Neill & Mullis, P.A., Appellees.

Case No. 2D16-5664

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed February 23, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY AS TRUSTEE FOR THE HOLDERS OF GSAMP TRUST 2004

- AR1 MORTGAGE PASS

- THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2004

- AR1

, Appellant,

v.

ADELE LAFAYE; ANY AN D ALL UNKNOWN PARTIES CLAI MING BY, THROUGH, UNDER O R AGAINST THE HEREIN N A MED INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANT (S) WHO ARE NOT KNOWN TO BE DEAD OR ALIVE, WHETH ER SAID UNKNOWN PARTIES MAY CLAIM AN INTEREST AS SPOUSES, HEIRS, DEVI SEES, GRANTEES, OR OTHER CLAIMANTS; JODY R. G ODWIN; WAYNE WHEATLEY; WELL S FARGO BANK, N.A.

, Appellee

. IN THE DIST RICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 15

- 5471

_____________________________/

Opinion filed December 9, 2016.

An appeal from the Circ uit Court for Okaloosa County

. William F. Stone , Judge

. N. Mark New, II, William L. Grimsley of McGlinchey Stafford, Jacksonville , for Appellant.2 Philip J. Padovano, Tracy S. Carlin, and Joseph T. Eagleton of Brannock & Humphries, Tampa; S. Thomas Peavey Hoffer of Matthews & Jones, LLP, Crestview , for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

WOLF

, RAY

, and MAKAR

, J J

. , CONCUR.
Jeremy Wade UMPHREY v. STATE

CR-15-1129

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

March 17, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
EXHIBIT 31.2
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 (a) OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT
   2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact
or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period
covered by this report;
 3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;
 4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls
and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information
relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by
others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared;b)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls
and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such
evaluation; andc)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants
internal control over financial reporting; and
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the
audit committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
 a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect
the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;
andb)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.
  /s/ Phillip J. SmithPhillip J. SmithExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)
MEMORANDUM

Subject: Summary of Meeting with Aluminum Association Representatives on

December 21, 2011

From: Mark Bahner, RTI, International

To: Rochelle Boyd, EPA/OAQPS

I. Purpose

The purpose of the meeting was to discuss Aluminum Association Representatives’ 

comments on testing of uncontrolled furnaces. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is 

considering a requirement that capture requirements similar to those that currently exist for 

controlled furnaces (which must have hooding that meets American Conference of 

Governmental Industrial Hygienists [ACGIH] guidelines) apply to compliance testing of 

uncontrolled furnaces.

II. Place and Date

The teleconference meeting was held between the EPA and aluminum industry

respresentatives between 10:00 AM and approximately 11:30 AM on December 21, 2011. 

III. Attendees

Name Affiliation

Rochelle Boyd* EPA/Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS)

Chuck Johnnson* Aluminum Association

Mike Palazzolo* Alcoa

Lee Califf* Alcoa

Denis Fitzgibbons* Novelis

Jason Perdion* Baker Hostetler

Mike Laney* RTI, International

Mark Bahner* RTI, International

Scott Throwe* EPA/Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assessment (OECA)

Mark Kataoka* EPA/Office of General Counsel (OGC)

Jeff Gahris* EPA/Region 5

* Attendance via teleconference.
IV. Meeting Summary

Industry representatives presented information on the types of furnaces that are 

uncontrolled, such as side well, reverberatory round top, reverberatory box, reverberatory spout, 

induction, and holding furnaces. The typical charging capture techniques, charging practices, 

furnace feeds, and furnace dwell times (amount of time from initial charge to tapping) were 

described for each furnace. The EPA concluded the meeting by requesting further information, 

such as: a) the types of furnaces for which the industry thought it would not be possible to 

provide capture during performance testing similar to the capture achieved by controlled 

furnaces, b) the type of monitoring currently in place and that could be developed for 

uncontrolled furnaces, and c) the type of work standards that are currently in place or could be 

developed for these uncontrolled furnaces.
Normond L. HALE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D16-604

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 1, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 10.15

                             AMENDMENT NO. 4 TO THE
                 CYTRX CORPORATION 2000 LONG-TERM INCENTIVE PLAN

        This Amendment No. 4 (the "Amendment") to the CytRx Corporation 2000
Long-Term Incentive Plan, as previously amended (as so amended, the "Plan"), is
made and shall be effective as of this 4th day of September, 2003, subject to
stockholder approval of this Amendment.

        WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Company has determined that it is
desirable and in the best interests of the Company and its stockholders to amend
the Plan to increase certain limitations on the amount of Awards that may be
granted thereunder;

        1. The text of Section 5.4 of the Plan is amended by deleting each
reference to "500,000" and replacing it with "1,000,000."

        2. As modified hereby, the provisions of the Plan shall remain in full
force and effect, and the Plan may be restated, as amended hereby, in its
entirety.

        NOW, THEREFORE, in accordance with Section 15.1 of the Plan, the Plan is
hereby amended as follows:
Gerren J. MCDONALD, Appellant, v. REGIONS BANK d/b/a Regions Mortgage, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-744

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed February 2, 2018.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
**Exhibit 31.1**
**RULE 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**
I, C. Christian Winkle, Chief Executive Officer, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Mariner HealthCare, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statementof a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows ofthe registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrantand have:
 a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or causedsuch disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known tous by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  b. Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, asof the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  c. Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s first fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based onour most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting,to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’sboard of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
 a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reportingwhich are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.
Date: August 6, 2004    /S/ C. CHRISTIAN WINKLE  C. Christian Winkle Chief Executive Officer
33
#### Walter J. KURKA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John PROBST; Ben Jaffa, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 15-35121

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted January 18, 2017 *

Filed January 30, 2017

Walter J. Kurka, Pro Se

Mark Cucci, Assistant Attorney General, AGAK—Office of the Alaska Attorney General, Anchorage, AK, for Defendants-Appellees

Before: TROTT, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument, *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Walter J. Kurka appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal and state law claims relating to misdemeanor criminal charges against him in Alaska state court. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. *Galen v. County of Los Angeles,*477 F.3d 652, 658 (9th Cir. 2007) (qualified immunity); *Milstein v. Cooley,*257 F.3d 1004, 1007 (9th Cir. 2001) (failure to state a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and prosecu-torial immunity). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendant Probst, an Alaska state trooper, on the basis of qualified immunity because Kurka failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Probst’s investigation of Kurka violated Kurka’s constitutional rights. *See Pearson v. Callahan,*555 U.S. 223, 231, 129 S.Ct. 808, 172 L.Ed.2d 565 (2009) (qualified immunity protects government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

The district court properly dismissed Kurka’s claims against defendant Jaffa on the basis of prosecutorial immunity because Jaffa’s actions were performed in his role as a state prosecutor. *See Cousins v. Lockyer,*568 F.3d 1063, 1068 (9th Cir. 2009) (“A state prosecuting attorney enjoys absolute immunity from liability under § 1983 for his conduct in pursuing a criminal prosecution insofar as he acts within his role as an advocate for the State and his actions are intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

• We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. *See Padgett v. Wright,*587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
EXHIBIT 3.1


                            CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT
                                       OF
                          CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION
                                       OF
                          APRIA HEALTHCARE GROUP INC.,
                             a Delaware corporation


     Apria Healthcare Group Inc., a corporation organized and existing under and
by  virtue  of the  General  Corporation  Law of the  State  of  Delaware  (this
"Corporation"), DOES HEREBY CERTIFY:

     FIRST:  That the Board of  Directors  of this  Corporation  has adopted the
following  resolution  setting  forth  a  proposed  amendment  of  the  Restated
Certificate of Incorporation of this Corporation:

          "RESOLVED FURTHER,  that the Restated  Certificate of Incorporation of
     this  Corporation  be amended by  changing  Article VI thereof so that,  as
     amended, Article VI shall read in its entirety as follows:

                                   ARTICLE VI

               The business and affairs of the Corporation  shall be managed and
          controlled  by  a  Board  of   Directors.   The  number  of  directors
          constituting the Board of Directors shall be fixed,  initially, by the
          Bylaws of the Corporation; thereafter the number of directors shall be
          fixed or altered  exclusively by  resolutions  adopted by the Board of
          Directors. At each annual meeting of stockholders, all directors shall
          be  elected  to  hold  office   until  the  next  annual   meeting  of
          stockholders.  Each director  shall hold office until his successor is
          elected and qualified or until his earlier resignation. No decrease in
          the  number  of  directors  shall  shorten  the term of any  incumbent
          director.  Elections  of  directors  need not be by ballot  unless the
          Bylaws so provide."

     SECOND:  That at the Corporation's  1999 annual meeting of stockholders,  a
majority of the outstanding stock entitled to vote
thereon voted in favor of the amendment.

     THIRD:  That the above  amendment was duly adopted in  accordance  with the
applicable provisions of Section 242 of the General Corporation Law of the State
of Delaware.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Apria Healthcare Group Inc. has caused this Certificate
to be signed by Philip L. Carter,  its Chief Executive  Officer,  as of the 21st
day of July, 1999.

                                         APRIA HEALTHCARE GROUP INC.


                                         By: ______________________________
                                             Philip L. Carter
                                             Chief Executive Officer
Nicholas Joseph BORSELLINO, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-3268

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed February 23, 2018

Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Timothy J. Ferreri, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

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

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

CASANUEVA, SILBERMAN, and BLACK, JJ., Concur.
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4433 

To make the antitrust laws applicable to a political committee under the 

Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 which is established and administered by a separate segregated fund of a corporation pursuant to section 

316(b)(2)(C) of such Act. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 13, 2010 

Mr. GRAYSON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To make the antitrust laws applicable to a political committee under the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 

which is established and administered by a separate segregated fund of a corporation pursuant to section 

316(b)(2)(C) of such Act. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. APPLICATION OF ANTITRUST LAWS TO COR4 PORATE PACS. 

5 The antitrust laws shall apply to a political committee 

6 under the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 which 

7 is established and administered by a separate segregated 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4433 IH

1 fund of a corporation pursuant to section 316(b)(2)(C) of 

2 such Act, and in accordance with such laws, a political 

3 committee for multiple legal entities in the same business 

4 shall be prohibited. 

5 SEC. 2. DEFINITION. 

6 For purposes of this Act, the term ‘‘antitrust laws’’ 

7 has the meaning given such term in the 1st section of the 

8 Clayton Act, except that such term includes section 5 of 

9 the Federal Trade Commission Act to the extent that such 

10 section 5 applies to unfair methods of competition. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
Dawn D. BARRETT, Appellant, v. Billy J. BARRETT, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-1243

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed November 8, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2009-3005

DEBORAH KATZ-PUESCHEL,

Petitioner,

v.

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD,

Respondent,

and

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORATION,

Intervenor.

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection Board in DC0752811049-C-1.

ON MOTION

Before GAJARSA, FRIEDMAN, and LINN, Circuit Judges.

LINN, Circuit Judge.

ORDER 

Deborah Katz-Pueschel moves without opposition to vacate the final decision of

the Merit Systems Protection Board in Katz-Pueschel v. Department of Transportation 

No. DC0752811049-C-1 and to remand for further proceedings.

In 2008, Katz-Pueschel petitioned for enforcement of a 1983 Board decision,

which had reversed her removal. The administrative judge issued an order to show

cause why her petition for enforcement should not be dismissed as untimely, citing 5

C.F.C. § 1201.182(a), which now sets a 30-day time limit for filing a petition for
enforcement of a final Board order when the agency has provided notice of its

compliance. Katz-Pueschel responded to the order. The agency also responded,

asserting that the petition for enforcement should be dismissed due to laches because

the delay in filing prejudiced the agency. The administrative judge dismissed the

petition as untimely and as barred by laches. The Board denied Katz-Pueschel's

petition for review and she petitioned this court for review of the Board's final decision.

In its brief filed with this court, the Board confesses error in its dismissal of KatzPueschel's petition for enforcement and requests that the court vacate the Board's final

decision and remand for further adjudication. Specifically, the Board concedes that the

Board's regulation concerning the time to petition for enforcement did not contain a time

limit when it issued its previous decision in Katz-Pueschel's case. The Board also

concedes that because the agency did not submit a declaration or any other evidence to

support its assertion that it was prejudiced by any delay in the filing of the petition for

enforcement, and because the burden to establish prejudice rests with the agency, it

was error to find that laches barred the petition for enforcement. The agency has also

indicated that it also does not oppose the motion to vacate and remand.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

The motion is granted. The Board's decision is vacated and the case is

remanded for further proceedings.

FOR THE COURT

MAY -5 2009

/s/ Jan Horbaly

Date Jan Horbaly

Clerk	U.S. :wq

THE f

- 2 -

	

MAY -5 2009

el MI
cc:	George M. Chuzi, Esq.

Stephanie Conley, Esq.

Elizabeth A. Holt, Esq.

s20

MAY -5 2009

ISSUED AS A MANDATE:

- 3 -