alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION
JOHN PEROTTI, et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-482
Plaintiffs,
Black, J.
vs Litkovitz, M.J.
CHIEF INSPECTOR ROGER REPORT AND
WILSON, et al., RECOMMENDATION
Defendants

On January 28, 2019, the District Judge adopted the Report and Recommendation of the
Magistrate Judge finding this matter may proceed, in part, with John Perotti as the sole plaintiff.
(Doc. 39).

On September 3, 2019, defendants filed a Notice of Suggestion of Death Upon the
Record, indicating that the sole remaining plaintiff in this matter, John Perotti, passed away on
July 20, 2019. (Doc. 42). On November 6, 2019, the Court ordered defendants to serve the
Notice of Suggestion of Death Upon the Record on the successor representative of Mr. Perotti
within 20 days and provide notice of such service on the record of the Court. See Fed. R. Civ.
P. 25. (Doc. 44).

On November 21, 2019, a Notice of Suggestion of Death of plaintiff John Perotti was
filed with the Court and served on Mr. Perotti’s next of kin. (Doc. 45).

Rule 25 (a)(1) provides in part:

Ifa party dies and the claim is not extinguished, the court may order substitution

of the proper party. A motion for substitution may be made by any party or by

the decedent’s successor or representative. If the motion is not made within 90

days after service of a statement noting the death, the action by or against the
decedent must be dismissed.


Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(a)(1).
More than ninety days have passed since the filing of the Notice of Suggestion of Death
of plaintiff John Perotti and no motion for substitution has been filed with the Court.
Accordingly, it is hereby RECOMMENDED THAT this matter be DISMISSED and
closed on the docket of the Court.

IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.

Fasa Ao cin

Karen L. Litkovitz, Magistrate Judge {
United States District Court


UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION
JOHN PEROTTI, et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-482
Plaintiffs,
Black, J.
vs Litkovitz, M.J.
CHIEF INSPECTOR ROGER
WILSON, et al.,
Defendants
NOTICE

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), WITHIN 14 DAYS after being served with a copy of
the recommended disposition, a party may serve and file specific written objections to the
proposed findings and recommendations. This period may be extended further by the Court on
timely motion for an extension. Such objections shall specify the portions of the Report
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 on the
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 14 DAYS after being served with a copy thereof. Failure to make
objections in accordance with this procedure may forfeit rights on appeal. See Thomas vy. Arn,

474 U.S. 140 (1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).
<PAGE>   1

                                                                      Exhibit 11



                           STATER BROS. HOLDINGS INC.
                    CALCULATION OF EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE
                                   (UNAUDITED)
          (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT NUMBER OF SHARES AND PER SHARE AMOUNTS)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                            13 Weeks Ended
                                                        -------------------------
                                                        Dec. 28,         Dec. 27,
                                                          1997             1998
                                                        --------         --------
<S>                                                     <C>              <C>    
Net income                                              $ 1,373          $ 2,287
Less preferred dividends                                     --               --
                                                        -------          -------

Net income available to common shareholders             $ 1,373          $ 2,287
                                                        =======          =======

Earnings per common share                               $ 27.46          $ 45.74
                                                        =======          =======

Average common shares outstanding                        50,000           50,000
                                                        =======          =======

Common shares outstanding at end of period               50,000           50,000
                                                        =======          =======
</TABLE>



                                       20
MIAMI BEVERLY LLC, et al., Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. CITY OF MIAMI, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D17-1014

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

OCTOBER 05, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.

Granted. Dismissed.
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 1468 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 15, 2022 

Received 

AN ACT 

To amend title 40, United States Code, to eliminate the 

leasing authority of the Securities and Exchange Commission, and for other purposes. 

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


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 1468 RDS

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Securities and Ex3 change Commission Real Estate Leasing Authority Rev4 ocation Act’’. 

5 SEC. 2. LEASING OF SPACE FOR SECURITIES AND EX6 CHANGE COMMISSION. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 3304 of title 40, United 

8 States Code, is amended by adding at the end the fol9 lowing: 

10 ‘‘(e) LEASING OF SPACE FOR SECURITIES AND EX11 CHANGE COMMISSION.—Notwithstanding any other provi12 sion of law, on and after the date of enactment of this 

13 subsection, the Securities and Exchange Commission may 

14 not lease general purpose office space. The Administrator 

15 may lease such space for the Securities and Exchange 

16 Commission under section 585 and this chapter.’’. 

17 (b) LIMITATION ON STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION.— 

18 The amendment made by subsection (a) may not be con19 strued to invalidate or otherwise affect a lease entered into 

20 by the Securities and Exchange Commission before the 

21 date of enactment of this Act. 

22 SEC. 3. INDEPENDENT LEASING AUTHORITIES. 

23 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Comptroller General of the 

24 United States shall submit to the Committee on Transpor25 tation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives, 

26 the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

HR 1468 RDS

1 Senate, and the Committee on Homeland Security and 

2 Governmental Affairs of the Senate a report on the review 

3 described in subsection (b). 

4 (b) REVIEW.—The Comptroller General shall com5 plete a review under which the Comptroller General shall 

6 update the 2016 report of the Comptroller General (GAO– 

7 16–648) with a specific focus on the following: 

8 (1) Updating the information included in Ap9 pendix II: Federal Entities That Reported Having 

10 Independent Leasing Authority for Domestic Offices 

11 and Warehouses of such report. 

12 (2) Determining to what extent Federal entities 

13 with independent leasing authorities have had such 

14 authorities rescinded or amended and the number 

15 and amount of office and warehouse space such enti16 ties lease. 

17 (3) Determining to what extent have agencies 

18 with independent leasing authority utilized the Gen19 eral Services Administration for leasing, including 

20 utilization of delegation of authority. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
4 

HR 1468 RDS

1 (4) Identifying progress made on implementing 

2 the recommendations in such report. 

Passed the House of Representatives September 14, 

2022. 

Attest: CHERYL L. JOHNSON, 

Clerk. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Alfonsiya James WARD, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-20617 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed September 28, 2017

Jimmy Eric Pardue, Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District' of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Leif A. Olson, Olson Firm, P.L.L.C., Humble, TX, for Defendant-Appellant

Before REAVLEY, PRADO, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Alfonsiya James Ward pleaded guilty to aiding and abetting armed bank robbery, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 2113(a), and brandishing a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(l)(A)(ii). He was sentenced to 71 months for bank robbery and 84 months for the firearm charge, for a total of 155 months of imprisonment, as well as three years of supervised release. Ward appeals the factual basis for his guilty plea to his § 924(c) conviction, arguing that federal armed bank robbery under § 2113(a) is not a predicate crime of violence for purposes of § 924(c). Specifically, he argues that armed bank robbery does not fall within § 924(c)(3)(A) because it does not have an element involving the use of force and that § 924(c)(3)(B)’s residual clause definition of crime of violence is void for vagueness in light of *Johnson v. United States,*— U.S. —, 135 S.Ct. 2551, 192 L.Ed.2d 569 (2015).

The Government has filed an unopposed motion for summary affirmance, or in the alternative, for an extension of time to file a brief. The Government contends that Ward’s arguments are foreclosed by this court’s decisions in *United States v. Brewer,*848 F.3d 711, 716 (5th Cir. 2017), and *United States v. Gonzalez-Longoria,*831 F.3d 670, 672 (5th Cir. 2016) (en banc), *petition for cert. filed*(Sept. 29, 2016) (No. 16-6259).

Ward’s argument that his conviction is not a crime of violence within the meaning of § 924(c)(3)(A) is foreclosed by *Brewer,*848 F.3d at 714-16, wherein this court concluded that armed bank robbery is a crime of violence for purposes of U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a)(l), which defines “crime of violence” in exactly the same manner as § 924(c)(3)(A). *See United States v. Jones,*854 F.3d 737, 740 (5th Cir. 2017), *petition for cert, filed*(July 17, 2017) (No. 17-5285). Ward’s argument that § 924(c)(3)(B) is unconstitutionally vague in light of *Johnson*is foreclosed by *Gonzalez-Longoria,*831 F.3d at 675-77, in which this court rejected a Johnson-based challenge to 18 U.S.C. § 16(b), which includes language nearly identical to that of § 924(c)(3)(B). *Jones,*854 F.3d at 740.

Accordingly, the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the alternative motion for an extension *179of time for briefing is DENIED AS UNNECESSARY. The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47,5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Marcos Antonio BACA-CAMPAS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 15-14317 Non-Argument Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Date Filed: 11/29/2016

Erica Williamson Barnes, Michael B. Billingsley, Thomas E. Borton, IV, Xavier 0. Carter, Joyce White Vance, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Birmingham, AL, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Marcos Antonio Baca-Campas, USP Atlanta-Inmate Legal Mail, Atlanta, GA, for Defendant-Appellant

Before MARCUS, JILL PRYOR and FAY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Alison Wallace, appointed counsel for Marcos Baca-Campas in this 'direct criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant and filed a brief pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed,2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Baca-Campas’s conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED.
From: Bill DuBois [mailto:billdubois@me.com] 

### Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2012 6:12 PM To: Adams, Kevin (OST) Subject: Re: El Centro IPL EAS cpmment period

Hello Mr. Adams: 

### ''"IZ lU
. 

## 12: 19

Thanks for yourpromptreply. I'm the chairman ofthe Governmental Affairs Committee ofthe El Centro and Brawley Chambers ofCommerce. Brawley & El Centro are the 2largest cities in Imperial County, and the two chambers of commerce represent almost 1000 dues-paying memberbusinesses. The Governmental Affairs Committee has members from each chamber, andwe comment onmatters ofall levels of government that may affect the membership ofeither orboth chambers. Certainly the airport's EAS is such a matter. Our committee's regular meeting is November 7th, at which time we will finalize our comments onthe EAS proposal for Imperial Airport. I realize this is one day laterthanyou requested for comments, but ifI can get a slight delay from you, I will send you our comments by the morning ofNovember 14th. Thanks for any consideration you can give us onthis matter. Bill DuBois

1
The State of 

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

August 27, 2014

No. 04-14-00095-CR

Jesus PADILLA,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 6, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 394254

Honorable Wayne A. Christian, Judge Presiding

ORDER

The Appellant’s motion for extension of time to file the brief is GRANTED. Time is 

extended to September 8, 2014.

_________________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 27th day of August, 2014.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
```

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 57 (Thursday, March 24, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 16588]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-6977]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

22 CFR Parts 120, 122, 123 and 129

[Public Notice: 7386]
RIN 1400-AC74

Amendment to the International Traffic in Arms Regulations: 
Electronic Payment of Registration Fees; 60-Day Notice of the Proposed 
Statement of Registration Information Collection; Correction

AGENCY: Department of State.

ACTION: Proposed rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of State published a proposed rule in the 
Federal Register on February 24, 2011, concerning a proposed ``DS-2032 
Statement of Registration'' Information Collection. The proposed rule 
contained incorrect addresses for the submission of public comments 
concerning the information collection.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tanya Phillips, 202-632-2879

Correction

    In the proposed rule FR Doc. 2011-3878 of February 24, 2011, page 
10293, in the second column, correct lines 47 through 71 to read as 
follows:

    ``Comments from the public on the information collection may be 
submitted until May 23, 2011.
    Comments should be sent by any of the following methods:
     E-mail: DDTCResponseTeam@state.gov with the subject 
line, ``Electronic Payment of Registration Fees.''
     Mail: PM/DDTC, SA-1, H1200, Directorate of Defense 
Trade Controls, Office of Defense Trade Controls Compliance, ATTN: 
Electronic Payment of Registration Fees, Bureau of Political 
Military Affairs, U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC 20522-
0112.
     Internet: View and comment on the original notice by 
searching for its RIN (1400-AC74) on the U.S. Government regulations 
Web site at http://www.regulations.gov.''

    Dated: March 17, 2011.
Robert S. Kovac,
Managing Director of Defense Trade Controls, Bureau of Political-
Military Affairs, U.S. Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2011-6977 Filed 3-23-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-25-P
```
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1412 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1412

 To amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit former Members and 
 elected officers of Congress from lobbying Congress at any time after 
                            leaving office.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 26, 2021

Mr. Hollingsworth introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
                     the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit former Members and 
 elected officers of Congress from lobbying Congress at any time after 
                            leaving 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 ``Banning Lobbying And Safeguarding 
Trust Act'' or the ``BLAST Act''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITING FORMER MEMBERS AND OFFICERS OF CONGRESS FROM 
              LOBBYING CONGRESS.

    (a) Prohibition.--Section 207(e)(1) of title 18, United States 
Code, is amended to read as follows:
            ``(1) Members and elected officers of congress.--Any person 
        who is a Senator, a Member of the House of Representatives, or 
        an elected officer of the Senate or the House of 
        Representatives and who, after that person leaves office, 
        knowingly makes, with the intent to influence, any 
        communication to or appearance before any Member, officer, or 
        employee of either House of Congress or any employee of any 
        other legislative office of the Congress, on behalf of any 
        other person (except the United States) in connection with any 
        matter on which such former Senator, Member, or elected 
        official seeks action by a Member, officer, or employee of 
        either House of Congress, in his or her official capacity, 
        shall be punished as provided in section 216 of this title.''.
    (b) Conforming Amendments.--Section 207(e)(2) of such title is 
amended--
            (1) in the heading, by striking ``Officers and staff'' and 
        inserting ``Staff'';
            (2) by striking ``an elected officer of the Senate, or'';
            (3) by striking ``leaves office or employment'' and 
        inserting ``leaves employment''; and
            (4) by striking ``former elected officer or''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply with respect to an individual who leaves office on or after the 
date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     7

       
<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1998
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                                     0
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                            2,618,068
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                              2,676,995
<EQUITIES>                                           3,552
<MORTGAGE>                                               0
<REAL-ESTATE>                                            0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                                   2,621,707
<CASH>                                           6,330,909
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                                       0
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                                   0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  10,643,011
<POLICY-LOSSES>                                          0
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                                      0
<POLICY-OTHER>                                           0
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                                    0
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                            26,275
<OTHER-SE>                                       6,909,161
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    10,643,011
<PREMIUMS>                                               0
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                                543,856
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                                       0
<OTHER-INCOME>                                   1,501,903
<BENEFITS>                                               0
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                              0
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                             2,427,321
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (381,562)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (143,308)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (238,254)
<DISCONTINUED>                                     671,049
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                       432,795
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         0.17
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         0.17
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                           0
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                                      0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                        0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                                       0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                         0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                          0
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                                  0
        


</TABLE>
Robert ROMO, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. The BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, etc., Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D17-1869

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

SEPTEMBER 26, 2017

Upon the Court's own motion, it is ordered that this appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Florida is dismissed for failure to comply with this Court's order dated August 23, 2017, and with the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure.

ROTHENBERG, C.J., and SUAREZ and SALTER, JJ., concur.
Danny MORGAN, Appellant, v. Vicki BRISTOL, Appellee.

No. 4D17-2496

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[March 22, 2018]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.