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

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1302 

To amend title 10, United States Code, to authorize the Secretary of Defense 

to provide space-available travel on aircraft of the Department of Defense 

to children, surviving spouses, parents, and siblings of members of the 

Armed Forces who die while serving in the active military, naval, or 

air service. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 24, 2021 

Mr. KELLY of Mississippi (for himself and Mr. RYAN) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To amend title 10, United States Code, to authorize the 

Secretary of Defense to provide space-available travel 

on aircraft of the Department of Defense to children, 

surviving spouses, parents, and siblings of members of 

the Armed Forces who die while serving in the active 

military, naval, or air service. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Gold Star Altitude 

5 Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1302 IH

1 SEC. 2. SPACE-AVAILABLE TRAVEL FOR CHILDREN, SUR2 VIVING SPOUSES, PARENTS, AND SIBLINGS 

3 OF MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES WHO 

4 DIE WHILE SERVING IN THE ACTIVE MILI5 TARY, NAVAL, OR AIR SERVICE. 

6 Section 2641b(c) of title 10, United States Code, is 

7 amended— 

8 (1) by redesignating paragraph (6) as para9 graph (7); and 

10 (2) by inserting after paragraph (5) the fol11 lowing new paragraph (6): 

12 ‘‘(6) Children, surviving spouses, parents, and 

13 siblings of members of the armed forces who die 

14 while serving in the active military, naval, or air 

15 service (as that term is defined in section 101 of 

16 title 38).’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
Case: 1:18-cv-00412-MWM-KLL Doc #: 29 Filed: 03/20/19 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: 462
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-14-00301-CR

Stevi Rene Hampton

v.

The State of Texas

§

§

§

§

§

From the 371st District Court

of Tarrant County (1353649W)

September 4, 2014

Per Curiam

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that 

the appeal should be dismissed. It is ordered that the appeal is dismissed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

PER CURIAM
Dolan Chemical Laboratory

4001 Bixby Road

Groveport, OH 43125

T: 614-836-4221, Audinet 210-4221

F: 614-836-4168, Audinet 210-4168

http://aepenv/labs

Water Analysis

Location: Mountaineer Plant Report Date: 1/31/2012

Sample Number: 120147-001 Date Collected: 01/11/2012 07:45 Date Received: 1/11/2012

 1st Stage Feed

Parameter Result Units RL MDL Analysis By Analysis Date/Time Method

Selenium, Se 548 ug/L 0.5 0.1 DPC 01/13/2012 10:53 EPA 200.8

Selenite, Se+4 (Hydride) 470 ug/L 10 2 TLT 01/26/2012 AEP Method

Sample Number: 120147-002 Date Collected: 01/11/2012 07:45 Date Received: 1/11/2012

 2nd Stage Feed

Parameter Result Units RL MDL Analysis By Analysis Date/Time Method

Selenium, Se 4.68 ug/L 0.5 0.1 DPC 01/13/2012 10:58 EPA 200.8

Selenite, Se+4 (Hydride) 3.07 ug/L 0.2 0.04 TLT 01/26/2012 AEP Method

Sample Number: 120147-003 Date Collected: 01/11/2012 07:45 Date Received: 1/11/2012

 Bioreactor Effluent

Parameter Result Units RL MDL Analysis By Analysis Date/Time Method

Selenium, Se 1.18 ug/L 0.5 0.1 DPC 01/13/2012 11:03 EPA 200.8

Selenite, Se+4 (Hydride) 0.518 ug/L 0.2 0.04 TLT 01/26/2012 AEP Method

THIS TEST REPORT RELATES ONLY TO THE ITEMS TESTED AND SHALL NOT BE REPRODUCED EXCEPT IN FULL WITHOUT WRITTEN 

APPROVAL OF THE LABORATORY. ALL TEST RESULTS MEET ALL OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ACCREDITING AUTHORITY, 

UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.

Brian Snyder, Chemist II

Email bssnyder@aep.com Tel. 614-836-4224

Fax 614-836-4168 Audinet 210-4224

Mountaineer Plant, 120147 Page 1 of 1
_______________________________________ __ 

# Order Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

July 30, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

132218 (70) (71) Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, MARY ELLEN McDONALD, Plaintiff-Appellee, Justices

v SC: 132218 COA: 259168 Genesee CC: 03-076398-NF FARM BUREAU INSURANCE CO, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the motion to st rike appellant’s reply brief and supplement to appendix and the motion to expand the record on appeal are considered, and the motion to strike appellant’s reply brief and supplement to appendix is DENIED. The motion to expand the record on appeal is GRANTED.

l0723 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

July 30, 2007

Clerk
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Scott Anderson HALL, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 15-12842

Non-Argument Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

(January 20, 2017)

Karin Bethany Hoppmann, Arthur Lee Bentley, III, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Tam*910pa, FL, Mark Devereaux, Bonnie Ames Glober, Mac D. Heavener, III, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Jacksonville, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Scott Anderson Hall, Montgomery, AL, for Defendant-Appellant

Before MARCUS, JULIE CARNES and FAY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Robert Rivers, appointed counsel for Scott Anderson Hall, has filed a motion to withdraw on appeal, supported by a brief prepared 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 issue of'merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Hall’s convictions and total sentence are AFFIRMED,
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

       
<S>                                <C>                 <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                      6-MOS               6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                  MAY-31-1997         MAY-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                     JUN-01-1996         JUN-01-1995                  
<PERIOD-END>                       NOV-30-1996         NOV-30-1995    
<CASH>                                  14,941                   0   
<SECURITIES>                                 0                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                          193,698                   0
<ALLOWANCES>                                 0                   0
<INVENTORY>                                  0                   0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                       272,342                   0
<PP&E>                               1,292,264                   0
<DEPRECIATION>                         130,164                   0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                       6,803,173                   0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                  978,258                   0
<BONDS>                              2,510,969                   0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        0                   0
<PREFERRED>                                  0                   0
<COMMON>                               121,599                   0
<OTHER-SE>                           3,530,673                   0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>         6,803,173                   0
<SALES>                                      0                   0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                       241,508                   0
<CGS>                                        0                   0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                        2,261,694             136,955 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             0                   0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             0                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                      89,971              33,995
<INCOME-PRETAX>                     (1,708,557)            564,910 
<INCOME-TAX>                                 0                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                 (1,708,557)            564,910  
<DISCONTINUED>                               0                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                              0                   0
<CHANGES>                                    0                   0
<NET-INCOME>                        (1,708,577)            564,910  
<EPS-PRIMARY>                             (.14)                .07
<EPS-DILUTED>                             (.14)                .07   
        


</TABLE>
Michael S. MCKINNEY, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-0337

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 27, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Max BOLDEN, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-1794

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: March 6, 2017

Filed: March 16, 2017

John E. Haak, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Kevin Koliner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, District of South Dakota, Sioux Falls, SD, for Plaintiff-Ap-pellee

Max Bolden, Pro Se

Before BENTON, BEAM, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

*507PER CURIAM.

Max Bolden appeals his sentence—nine months’ imprisonment to be followed by five years of supervised release—following the district court’s1 revocation of his supervised release. Bolden contends the nine-month sentence was substantively unreasonable because the district court did not consider the mitigating factors that Bolden suggested at sentencing. Bolden’s advisory Guidelines range was six to twelve months in prison, and an additional period of supervised release could be imposed for any term of years to life. Bolden does not challenge the revocation itself and in fact admitted to each of the violations. Nor does Bolden appear to challenge the five-year period of supervised release.

A review of the Bureau of Prisons records indicates that Bolden has served his nine-month term and has been released. Because Bolden does not expressly challenge the revocation itself, or the reasonableness of the period of supervised release, his appeal is likely moot because he has been released from custody. United States v. Aden, 830 F.3d 812, 816 (8th Cir. 2016). However, to the extent Bolden’s brief can be read to additionally include a challenge to the five-year period of supervised release, we find that the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the current sentence. The record indicates that the district court considered Bolden’s mitigation arguments and in fact engaged in a lengthy colloquy with Bolden wherein the court determined that Bolden had not accepted responsibility for his violations. Further, Bolden’s penchant for violating the conditions of supervised release by drinking alcohol, taking illegal drugs, and missing required urine testing indicated a need for another lengthy period of supervised release following Bolden’s discharge from custody. The within-Guidelines-range sentence ultimately imposed by the district court was eminently reasonable. United States v. Boelter, 806 F.3d 1134, 1136 (8th Cir. 2015) (reasonableness standard of review). We affirm.

1

. The Honorable Karen E. Schreier, United States District Judge for the District of South Dakota.
Christopher COUTINO, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D16-3232

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 6, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
lxu-ex1012_319.htm



Exhibit 10.12

 

NOTICE PERIOD EXTENSION

Mark Behrman (“Executive”) and LSB Industries, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“Company”), entered into an employment agreement effective as of December 31, 2015 (“Employment Agreement”), the initial term of which is scheduled to expire on December 30, 2018.

The term of the Employment Agreement automatically would be extended for another year through December 30, 2019 unless either party elects not to extend the Employment Agreement by giving written notice to the other party by July 4, 2018.

Since Executive and the Company are discussing potential changes to the Employment Agreement and such discussions may impact their decision whether to provide notice of an election not to extend the Employment Agreement, both Executive and the Company previously agreed to an extension until December 7, 2018 to provide notice and now agree that Section 1 of the Employment Agreement is hereby further amended such that the deadline for providing notice to the other party of an election not to extend the Employment Agreement for another year commencing December 31, 2018 shall be December 30, 2018.

In all other respects, the Employment Agreement shall continue in effect.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have duly executed and delivered this Notice Period Extension or have caused this Notice Period Extension to be duly executed and delivered on their behalf.     

 


	
EXECUTIVE

	
 

	
/s/ Mark Behrman

	
Mark Behrman

	
 

	
 

	
LSB INDUSTRIES, INC.

	
 

	
/s/ Michael J. Foster

	
 

	
By:
	
Michael J. Foster

	
Its:
	
Senior Vice President




 

MJF-CLW/BOD Behrman Notice Period Extension – 20181127-
#### PENNSYLVANIA MANUFACTURERS’ ASSOCIATION INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RICCELLI ENTERPRISES, INC., Defendant-Counter-Claimant-Counter-Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-1707-cv

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

May 9, 2017

FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE: Kevin E. Hulslander (Karen G. Fetter, on the brief), Smith, Sovik, Kendrick *&*Sugnet, P.C., Syracuse, NY.

FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT: Anthony J. Piazza (Mark T. Whitford, Jr., on the brief), Barclay Damon, LLP, Rochester, NY.

PRESENT: JOHN M. WALKER, JR., GERARD E. LYNCH, RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., Circuit Judges,

SUMMARY ORDER

Riccelli Enterprises, Inc. (“Riccelli”) appeals from the orders and judgment of the District Court (Sannes, J.) denying Riccel-li’s motion for an extension of the deadline for the production of documents, granting summary judgment in favor of Pennsylvania Manufacturers’ Association Insurance Company (“PMA”) on its breach of contract claims, and awarding PMA damages and prejudgment interest. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts and record of the prior proceedings, to which we refer only as necessary to explain our decision to affirm.

After an independent review of the record and relevant case law, we affirm for substantially the reasons articulated by the District Court in its orders of May 26, 2015, December 9, 2015, and May 6, 2016.

We have considered all of Riccelli’s arguments not specifically addressed by the District Court and conclude that they are without merit. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                           6,055
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 1,642
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     21,531
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                        164,535
<ALLOWANCE>                                      2,707
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 206,788
<DEPOSITS>                                     176,975
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              2,524
<LONG-TERM>                                     10,711
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,161
<OTHER-SE>                                      15,417
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 206,788
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  4,096
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                  309
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 4,405
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               1,740
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,888
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            2,517
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      259
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                  33
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  2,094
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,128
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       761
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.31
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.30
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    9.69
<LOANS-NON>                                        803
<LOANS-PAST>                                     1,683
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                    90
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                  5,411
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 2,702
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      351
<RECOVERIES>                                        97
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                2,707
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             2,306
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            401
        

</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dwayne Mitchell LITTLEJOHN, a/k/a Manson, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-6346

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: July 27, 2017

Decided: July 31, 2017

Dwayne Mitchell Littlejohn, Appellant Pro Se. Donald David Gast, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina; Jennifer A. Youngs, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before AGEE and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Dwayne Mitchell Littlejohn appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion for a sentence reduction. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *United States v. Littlejohn,*No. 2:08-cr-0036-MR-DLH-2 (W.D.N.C. Mar. 1, 2017). We dispense with oral argu*152ment because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>  5
<CIK>          0000883296
<NAME>         ACRODYNE COMMUNICATIONS, INC.

<S>                                <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                   JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                     SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                             1,800,895
<SECURITIES>                               0
<RECEIVABLES>                      1,541,246
<ALLOWANCES>                               0
<INVENTORY>                        6,451,495
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                  10,165,549
<PP&E>                             1,589,263
<DEPRECIATION>                     1,100,723
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                    14,971,995
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>              3,677,178
<BONDS>                                    0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                      0
<PREFERRED>                            6,500
<COMMON>                              67,917
<OTHER-SE>                                 0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>      14,971,995
<SALES>                            7,730,399
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           0
<CGS>                              5,600,450
<TOTAL-COSTS>                      3,213,051
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                           0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                           0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                   130,639
<INCOME-PRETAX>                   (1,330,927)
<INCOME-TAX>                               0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        0
<DISCONTINUED>                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                            0
<CHANGES>                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                      (1,330,927)
<EPS-BASIC>                        6,791,681
<EPS-DILUTED>                      6,791,681


</TABLE>
----

----

----

----

|         If to      Employer:         CytRx      Corporation        11726      San Vicente Boulevard, Suite 650        Los      Angeles, California  90049        Facsimile:                                (310)      826-5529        Attention:                                Chief      Executive Officer |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|          If to      Employee:         __________________        __________________        __________________                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 |

----

|   | “EMPLOYER” CytRx      Corporation  By: /s/ STEVEN A.      KRIEGSMANSteven A.KriegsmanChief Executive      Officer                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | “EMPLOYEE”  /s/ SHI CHUNG      NG                                                               Shi      Chung Ng |

----