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

Aerial Information Technologies

Menifee,CA 92585

(951)249­4530

Docket # FAA­2015­0153­0001

In response to requirements to comply 11.81

Please attach to Docket FAA­2015­0153

1. Personnel Safety

a. Capital assets, such as quarries, dams, pipelines, and bridges often times span over areas

where terrain is unstable, vertical, or simply too dangerous for foot travel. Field inspections

leave employees vulnerable to environmental hazards such as stream crossing, seasonal

water runoff, risk of falls and blocked paths; biological hazards, such as snakes, and natural

predators; and extreme temperature changes which may cause altitude sickness, or heat

stroke. The utilization of our UAV will ensure access to these areas while minimizing risk of

serious injury or issue to personnel assigned to conduct these surveys.

2. Access to remote or impassable areas

a. Segments of quarries, dams, pipelines, and bridges may currently be or become

unreachable, partially obscured, or impracticable for inspection by conventional means, such

as physically walking the line, or utilizing airplane or helicopters for inspections. Access to

assets can also be partially or completely blocked by environmental singularities, such as

storm events, felled trees, or vegetation growth, or blocked by mechanical means such as

vehicle accidents, new construction, or road maintenance. The use of our UAV will ensure

access to remote or impassable areas on an as­needed basis as well as during or after

uncontrolled singular events.

3. Protection of natural resources

The use of UAV’s along with NIR (near infrared) photography make it possible to quickly and

efficiently monitor the use and possible loss of water to crops due to over saturation, thereby

increasing efficiency of water use as well as increasing crop yield.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6378 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6378

 To permit the remains of any Medal of Honor recipient to lie in honor 
  in the rotunda of the United States Capitol, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           November 13, 2023

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To permit the remains of any Medal of Honor recipient to lie in honor 
  in the rotunda of the United States Capitol, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. PERMITTING REMAINS OF MEDAL OF HONOR RECIPIENTS TO LIE IN 
              HONOR IN CAPITOL ROTUNDA.

    (a) Request of Surviving Next of Kin.--At the request of the 
primary surviving next of kin of a Medal of Honor recipient, the 
remains of the Medal of Honor recipient shall be permitted to lie in 
honor in the rotunda of the United States Capitol.
    (b) Responsibilities of the Architect of the Capitol.--The 
Architect of the Capitol, under the direction of the Speaker of the 
House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate, 
shall take such steps as the Architect considers appropriate to carry 
out this Act, including determining the date and time during which the 
remains of a Medal of Honor recipient shall be permitted to lie in 
honor and establishing regulations to determine who is the primary 
surviving next of kin of a Medal of Honor recipient.
    (c) Definition.--In this Act, the term ``Medal of Honor recipient'' 
has the meaning given such term in section 1074h of title 10, United 
States Code.
    (d) Effective Date.--This Act shall apply with respect to an 
individual who dies on or after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
James ZEBRANEK, Jr., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. The ESTATE OF James David ZEBRANEK, Sr., et al., Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-1604

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

May 23, 2018

BY ORDER OF THE COURT:

This appeal is dismissed for failure of the appellant to comply with this court's two orders of April 25, 2018.

NORTHCUTT, LUCAS, and BADALAMENTI, JJ., Concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                         924,081
<SECURITIES>                                       232
<RECEIVABLES>                                  159,518
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,174,368
<PP&E>                                         423,946
<DEPRECIATION>                                  83,937
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,124,371
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          856,451
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          1
<COMMON>                                         2,148
<OTHER-SE>                                     446,404
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,124,376
<SALES>                                      1,807,274
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,807,274
<CGS>                                        1,170,742
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,731,363
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                15,823
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               8,378
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 84,743
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             84,743
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    84,743
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.41
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.35
        


</TABLE>
Exhibit



BARNES & NOBLE EDUCATION, INC. 
120 Mountainview Boulevard 
Basking Ridge, New Jersey 07920



February 28, 2019
Michael C. Miller 
c/o 
Barnes & Noble Education, Inc. 
750 Third Avenue, 6th Floor 
New York, NY  10017
Dear Michael:


Barnes & Noble Education, Inc. (the “Company”) and Barnes & Noble College Booksellers, LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company, are pleased to offer you the cash retention bonus described in this letter.


Subject to your execution of this letter, the Company will pay you a cash bonus of $200,000, net of applicable tax and other legally-required withholdings (the “Retention Bonus”).  The Retention Bonus will be paid to you on March 1, 2019 (subject to your continued employment through that date).  For the avoidance of doubt, the Retention Bonus is in addition to (and not in lieu of) any other compensation that may be payable to you.


As a condition to receiving the Retention Bonus, you hereby agree that if your employment is terminated by the Company with “Cause” (as defined in the letter agreement between you and the Company dated as of April 12, 2017) or you resign other than for “Good Reason” (as defined in that letter agreement), in either case prior to March 1, 2020, you will immediately repay the Retention Bonus.


Thank you for your valued service to the Company, and we look forward to your continued critical contributions to our success.


Very truly yours,


BARNES & NOBLE EDUCATION, INC.
	
		
	By:
	/s/ JoAnn Magill

	Name:
	JoAnn Magill

	Date:
	2/28/2019




Accepted and Agreed to:


MICHAEL C. MILLER
	
		
	By:
	/s/ Michael C. Miller

	Date:
	2/28/2019
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.

* Honorable John L. Kane, Jr., Senior District Judge for the District of Colorado, sitting by designation. FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### April 7, 2009 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT
SUMMUM, a corporate sole and church, Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. PLEASANT GROVE CITY, a municipal corporation; JIM DANKLEF, Mayor; MARK ATWOOD, City Council Member; CINDY BOYD, City Council Member; MIKE DANIELS, City Council Member; DAROLD MCDADE, City Council Member; JEFF WILSON, City Council Member; CAROL HARMER, former City Council Member; G. KEITH CORRY, former City Council Member; FRANK MILLS, City Administrator, Defendants - Appellees. No. 06-4057 (D. Ct. No. 2:05-CV-638-DB ) (D. Utah)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before TACHA and EBEL , Circuit Judges, and KANE , *District Judge.

In Pleasant Grove City v. Summum , 129 S. Ct. 1125, 1138 (2009), the Supreme Court reversed this court’s opinion in Summum v. Pleasant Grove City , 483 F.3d 1044- 2 - (10th Cir. 2007) and held that the defendants’ conduct does not implicate the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause. Because this conclusion is fatal to Summum’s claim that the defendants violated its free speech rights, we AFFIRM the district court’s denial of Summum’s motion for a preliminary injunction on this issue and REMAND to the district court to conduct further proceedings consistent with this order and judgment and Pleasant Grove City v. Summum , 129 S. Ct. 1125 (2009). The mandate stayed originally by our order dated September 5, 2007 is issued forthwith. ENTERED FOR THE COURT,

Deanell Reece Tacha Circuit Judge
United States Court of Appeals

For the First Circuit

No. 05-1822

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Appellee,

v.

JUAN MANUEL CRUZADO-LAUREANO, a/k/a Manny,

Defendant, Appellant.

ERRATA SHEET

The opinion of this Court issued on March 14, 2006 is

amended as follows:

On page 13, line 14, replace "3B3.1" with "3B1.3".
#### Sabrina Renee BROWN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SAM’S CLUB, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 17-1312

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 25, 2017

Decided: May 30, 2017

Sabrina Renee Brown, Appellant Pro Se.

Before MOTZ, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed and remanded with instructions by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Sabrina Renee Brown seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing her civil complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) (2012) without prejudice. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); *Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp.,*337 U.S. 541, 545-47, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). Because it is possible that Brown could cure the defects in her complaint through amendment, the order she seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. *Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid Soc’y, Inc.,*807 F.3d 619, 623-25, 628-30 (4th Cir. 2015); *Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392,*10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and remand the case to the district court with instructions to allow Brown to file an amended complaint. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS*
EX-10.25





 Exhibit 10.25 

Description of PMD Retiree Medical Program 

Participating Managing Directors (“PMDs”) who retire with eight or more years of service as PMDs are eligible to receive retiree medical coverage
for themselves and their eligible dependents. The PMD retiree medical program currently provides a subsidy of up to 75%. A PMD’s eligibility under the PMD retiree medical program generally terminates if the PMD engages in conduct constituting
cause or if the PMD goes to work for a competitor. A PMD with less than eight years of service or who goes to work for a non-competitor may be eligible for the retiree medical program but not the subsidy. The
PMD retiree medical program and/or the subsidy can be amended or terminated at any time as provided in the applicable plan documents.
Sherried Oscar WATSON, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-1863

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed May 22, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Rafael COMAS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D17-2670

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed May 16, 2018

Rafael Comas, in proper person.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Magaly Rodriguez, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Before ROTHENBERG, C.J., and LAGOA and LOGUE, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
Order filed May 19, 2016 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-15-00854-CR

NO. 14-15-00855-CR

____________

JOHN M. ENARD, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 178th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. 1375416 & 1439251

CORRECTED ORDER

On April 27, 2016, this court issued an order to the trial court for amended 

certifications of the defendant’s right to appeal and requested a supplemental clerk’s 

record containing the amended certifications to be filed on or before May 11, 2016. 

As of today, the court has not received the supplemental clerk’s record containing 

the amended certifications of the defendant’s right to appeal signed May 5, 2016.
The Harris County District Clerk is directed to file a supplemental clerk’s 

record on or before May 26, 2016, containing amended certifications of the 

defendant’s right to appeal signed May 5, 2016.

PER CURIAM
(LOGO)NORTH AMERICAN MORTGAGE COMPANY
A DIME COMPANY

5100 West Lemon Street
Suite 109
Tampa, FL 33609
813-636-2902
Fax 813-636-2961

Management Assertion

As of and for the year ended December 31, 1999, North American  Mortgage Company
(the Company) has complied in all material  respects with the minimum  servicing
standards set forth in the Mortgage  Bankers  Association  of America's  Uniform
Single Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers. As of and for this same period,
the Company had in effect a fidelity bond and errors and omissions policy in the
following amounts as of and for the year ended December 31, 1999:

Fidelity Bond

$100,000,000 from January 1, 1999 to December 31, 1999

Errors and Omissions

$20,000,000 from January 1, 1999 to December 31, 1999

Raymond G. Romano
SVP/Director of Residential Credit


3/27/00
Date
Jeffrey LE CLAIR, Appellant/petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-4853

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

January 23, 2018

BY ORDER OF THE COURT:

Petitioner's petition for writ of mandamus is denied without prejudice. Petitioner is required to make an express and distinct demand for performance before mandamus will be considered. See Al-Hakim v. State, 783 So. 2d 293, 294 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001).

SILBERMAN, KELLY, and BADALAMENTI, JJ., Concur.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Roberto GARCIA-ALMANZA, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-41645 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed June 20, 2017

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

Roberto Garcia-Almanza, Pro Se

Before SMITH, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges. ■

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Roberto Garcia-Almanza has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Garcia-Almanza has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 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.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 11


                       3CI COMPLETE COMPLIANCE CORPORATION
                 STATEMENT RE: COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
                                   (UNAUDITED)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                        FOR THE             FOR THE             FOR THE             FOR THE
                                                  THREE MONTHS ENDED  THREE MONTHS ENDED   SIX MONTHS ENDED     SIX MONTHS ENDED
                                                        MARCH 31,           MARCH 31,           MARCH 31,           MARCH 31,
                                                          1999                1998                1999                1998
                                                  ------------------  ------------------   ----------------     ----------------
<S>                                               <C>                 <C>                  <C>                  <C>      
Weighted average common shares outstanding
  - basic earnings per share                            9,197,658           9,160,147           9,200,138           9,106,659

Common stock issuable upon assumed conversion
  - of stock options and warrant                        7,750,000                  --           7,750,000                  --
                                                       ----------          ----------          ----------          ----------

Adjusted weighted average common shares
  outstanding - diluted earnings per shares            16,947,658           9,160,147          16,950,138           9,106,659
                                                       ==========          ==========          ==========          ==========

Net income                                                662,656              23,728             516,466             (99,772)
                                                       ==========          ==========          ==========          ==========

Net income per share - basic                                 0.07                0.01                0.06               (0.01)
                                                       ==========          ==========          ==========          ==========

Net income per -share diluted                                0.04                0.01                0.03               (0.01)
                                                       ==========          ==========          ==========          ==========
</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-6575

MICHAEL E. GARNER,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

HAROLD CLARKE, Director,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at 

Roanoke. Michael F. Urbanski, Chief District Judge. (7:18-cv-00560-MFU-JCH)

Submitted: February 14, 2022 Decided: February 24, 2022

Before THACKER and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael E. Garner, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Michael E. Garner seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 

U.S.C. § 2254 petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues 

a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). A certificate of appealability 

will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the district court’s 

assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis, 137 S. Ct. 

759, 773-74 (2017). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the 

prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that 

the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Gonzalez v. 

Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Garner has not made 

the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Garner’s motion for appointment of counsel, 

deny a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 99.18
-------------

Contact:    Jerry B. Hook, Ph.D.                   Ronald H. Spair
            President & CEO                        Chief Financial Officer
            Sparta Pharmaceuticals, Inc.           Sparta Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
            (215) 442-1700, ext. 205               (215) 442-1700, ext. 207

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

   Sparta Pharmaceuticals Reports Change in Conversion Price of its Series B'
   --------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Convertible Preferred Stock
                           ---------------------------

         Horsham, PA, August 25, 1997, Sparta Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Nasdaq:
SPTA, SPTAU, SPTAW, SPTAZ and SPTAL) announced today that the conversion price
of its outstanding Series B' Convertible Preferred Stock into shares of Common
Stock has been adjusted from $1.50 per share to $.75 per share. This adjustment
is made pursuant to the terms of the financing concluded in August 1996 and is
effective for conversions of Series B' Convertible Preferred Stock initiated
subsequent to August 23, 1997.

         Sparta is a development stage pharmaceutical company engaged in the
business of acquiring rights to, and developing for commercialization,
technologies and drugs for the treatment of a number of life threatening
diseases including cancer, cardiovascular disorders and inflammation. The
Company has focused on acquiring compounds that have been previously tested in
humans and animals and technologies that may improve the delivery or targeting
of previously tested, and in some cases marketed, anticancer agents. Sparta's
foundation in cancer chemotherapy has been augmented by the addition of new
technology in the rapidly expanding field of serine protease inhibitors. Serine
protease inhibitors have wide applications in diverse fields such as
inflammation, reperfusion injury and stroke.

                                      # # #