alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Land and Maritime veteran runs Marine Corps Marathon in honor of fallen 

/ Published Nov. 1, 2019
COLUMBUS, Ohio, 
Jon Ferguson trained for four months – covering roughly 400 miles – to prepare himself for a big moment in late October. The Marine Corps veteran and current Defense Logistics Agency Land and Maritime associate completed the Marine Corps Marathon Oct. 27 in Washington, D.C. It was Ferguson’s first time running the race and second marathon ever.

Now in its 44th year, the Marine Corps Marathon is one of the largest marathons in the U.S. and holds the distinction of being the largest marathon in the world that doesn’t offer prize money – earning it the nickname “The People’s Marathon,” according to the event release.

Finishing with a time of just over five hours, Ferguson said his goal wasn’t to be fast – rather it was to honor fallen Marines he served with in his 16-year Marine Corps career. 

His first marathon – the 2017 Air Force Marathon – was in honor of his father, Chief Master Sgt. David Ferguson. His latest race honored 38 fallen service members from two Infantry units in the Camp Pendleton, California-based 1st Marine Division. Ferguson served in the division’s 3rd Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment and 2nd Battalion, 4th Marine Regiment, in addition to completing several deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan.

After concluding his military career, Ferguson transitioned to federal service and currently works as a business opportunities specialist with DLA Land and Maritime’s Office of Small Business Programs at the Defense Supply Center Columbus. The veteran said he applies his military background to his civilian specialty.

“I work in an extremely dynamic organization with a critical mission that supports the warfighter and small businesses,” Ferguson said. “We use massive amounts of data, various forms of media and interpersonal communications to achieve our goals as an office, major subordinate command and an enterprise.”

To do that, Ferguson said it’s often not about reinventing the wheel or “building a better mousetrap” as he likes to say. It’s about teamwork.

“Always consider how to leverage available resources using an outside-the-box approach,” he explained. “And if you identify a way to work smarter and not harder – do it and show others how.”

Ferguson said he’s not sure what’s next for him on the racing front now that he’s completed his marathon goal. He may pursue smaller races but for the moment he’s simply enjoying life and the pride of a mission accomplished.
2017-0520.

#### State v. Clay.

Mahoning App. No. 08 MA 2, 2009-Ohio-1204. On motion for leave to file delayed appeal. Motion denied.
Exhibit 23.1

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-30847 of EPIQ Systems, Inc. on
Form S-8, in Registration Statement No. 333-57952 of EPIQ systems, Inc. on Form S-8, in Registration Statement
No. 333-101233 of EPIQ Systems, Inc. on From S-8, and in Registration Statement No. 333-101232 of EPIQ Systems, Inc. on
Form S-3 of our report dated March 11, 2003 (which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph relating to a change in accounting
principle), appearing in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of EPIQ Systems, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2002.

/s/
Deloitte & Touche LLP

Kansas
City, Missouri
March 11, 2003

---

QuickLinks
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
      Schedule of Year-To-Date Principal and Interest Distributions
				  to 
			 Certificate Holders

			 Scheduled        Unscheduled                Ending
Class        Interest     Pricipal          Principal               Balance
<S>     <C>             <C>             <C>                  <C>

A1         479,376.53      60,885.97      478,468.45      81,639,479.57 
A2          36,452.50           0.00            0.00       6,249,000.00 
A3           5,550.00           0.00            0.00         888,000.00 
A4           2,220.00           0.00            0.00         444,000.00 
A5          87,141.83      12,177.19       95,693.69      17,844,095.12 
A6          62,457.88           0.00            0.00               0.00 
A7          78,125.00       8,481.62            0.00      12,491,518.38 
APO              0.00         453.86          219.30         543,838.67 
ALR              0.62          11.29           88.71               0.00 
AR               0.62          11.29           88.71               0.00 
M            7,818.75         848.84            0.00       1,250,151.16 
B1           9,775.00       1,061.22            0.00       1,562,938.78 
B2           3,912.50         424.76            0.00         625,575.24 
B3           3,906.25         424.08            0.00         624,575.92 
B4             787.50          85.49            0.00         125,914.51 
B5           1,173.65          88.44            0.00         187,656.18 
    
Total      778,698.63      84,954.05      574,558.86  





</TABLE>
**                                                                                                  Exhibit    10(o)(16)**
**AMENDMENT      NO. 15**

**TO      **

**ALLTEL      CORPORATION 401(k) PLAN**

**(January      1, 2001 Restatement) **

----

|  | k.      | For                purposes of this Article XIX, a Participant may withdraw amounts                from his                Profit Sharing Sub-Account as provided for in Article                XXXIII. |
|--|----------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

**ARTICLE      XXXIII**

**PROFIT      SHARING SUB-ACCOUNT**

|   | 32.01 | Establishment                of Profit Sharing Sub-Account |
|--------|-------|------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 32.02   | Vesting |
|--------|-------------------|---------|

----

| Years                of                Participation Service | VestedPercentage |
|--------------------------------------------------------------|------------------|
|                                                         |             |
| Less                than 3                              | 0%          |
| 3                or more                                | 100%        |

|   | 32.03   | Forfeiture                of Profit Sharing |
|--------|-------------------|---------------------------------------------|

----
II

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 2072

To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to facilitate the immigration

to the United States of certain aliens born in the Philippines or Japan

who were fathered by United States citizens.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MAY 4 (legislative day, MAY 2), 1994

Mr. INOUYE (for himself and Mr. AKAKA) introduced the following bill; which

was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to facilitate

the immigration to the United States of certain aliens

born in the Philippines or Japan who were fathered

by United States citizens.

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

3 That section 204(f)(2)(A) of the Immigration and Nation4 ality Act (8 U.S.C. 1154(f)(2)(A)) is amended—

5 (1) by inserting ‘‘(I)’’ after ‘‘born’’; and

6 (2) by inserting after ‘‘subsection,’’ the follow7 ing: ‘‘(II) in the Philippines after 1950 and before
2

•S 2072 IS

1 November 24, 1992, or (III) in Japan after 1950

2 and before the date of enactment of this subclause,’’.

Æ
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Edward Hurdle, Appellant.

[50 NYS3d 264]

*529Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Neil E. Ross, J.), entered on or about October 29, 2013, which denied defendant’s CPL 440.30 (1-a) motion for DNA testing, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s motion was materially indistinguishable from a prior motion that was denied in an order affirmed by this Court (56 AD3d 317 [1st Dept 2008], *lv denied*12 NY3d 784 [2009]). Although CPL 440.30 has been amended since defendant made the prior motion, the relevant standard for obtaining DNA testing has not changed. Further, defendant has presented no facts that were not before us on the prior appeal. Accordingly, there is no basis for departure from our previous determination that, since the crime was committed in such a manner that the absence of defendant’s DNA from any or all of the crime scene evidence at issue would not be exculpatory. There is no reasonable probability that DNA testing would have led to a verdict more favorable to defendant.

Concur — Renwick, J.P., Maz-zarelli, Moskowitz, Kapnick and Webber, JJ.
2017-0553.

#### Dept. of Job & Family Servs. v. Delphi Automotive Sys., L.L.C.

Franklin App. No. 14AP-971, 2017-0hio-809. On joint motion to stay and refer case to mediation. Motion granted.

The following cases have been returned to the regular docket under S.Ct.Prac.R. 19.01. The appellant in each case shall file a brief within 40 days, and the parties shall otherwise proceed in accordance with S.Ct.Prac.R. 16.02 through 16.07. As provided in S.Ct.Prac.R. 16.07, the court may dismiss these cases or take other action if the parties fail to timely file merit briefs.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM ELECTRONIC
PROCESSING, INC. CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF INCOME FOR THE YEARS ENDED DECEMBER
31, 1997 AND CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS AT DECEMBER 31, 1997, AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                       1,835,233
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,119,424
<ALLOWANCES>                                     5,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,128,325
<PP&E>                                       6,879,264
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,338,301
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,160,968
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,352,481
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     5,236,000
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,160,968
<SALES>                                      8,389,144
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             8,389,144
<CGS>                                        3,997,845
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,997,845
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             3,140,818
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             160,393
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,090,088
<INCOME-TAX>                                   724,589
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            365,499
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   365,499<F1>
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .11<F2>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .11<F3>
<FN>
<F1>CALCULATED ON A PRO-FORMA BASIS WOULD BE $638,399
<F2>CALCULATED ON A PRO-FORMA BASIS WOULD BE $.20
<F3>CALCULATED ON A PRO-FORMA BASIS WOULD BE $.19
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
#### Com. v. Weeks

10/29/2015

474 MAL (2015)

Denied

Pa.Super., 122 A.3d 452
#### Com. v. Hickson 21

02/08/2016

873 MAL (2015)

21

. Justice EAKIN did not participate in the decision of this matter. Justice DONOHUE did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.

Denied

Pa.Super., 133 A.3d 78
#### Justin Coffee, Appellant, v Tank Industry Consultants, Inc., et al., Defendants. Worldwide Industries Corp., Third-Party Plaintiff, v CDK Industries, Inc., Third-Party Defendant-Respondent.

[51 NYS3d 917]

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County (Donald A. Greenwood, J.), entered April 26, 2016. The order denied the motion of plaintiff to compel disclosure and granted the cross motion of third-party defendant for a protective order.

Now, upon reading and filing the stipulation of discontinuance signed by the attorneys for the parties,

It is hereby ordered that said appeal is unanimously dismissed without costs upon stipulation.

Present—Centra, J.P., Lindley, DeJoseph, NeMoyer and Scudder, JJ.
NO. 07-07-0063-CR

	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

	FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	AT AMARILLO

	PANEL C

	JULY 26, 2007

	______________________________

	ERIC FRANCIS LONG, APPELLANT

	V.

	THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

	_________________________________

	FROM THE 264TH DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY;

	NO. 59098; HONORABLE MARTHA J. TRUDO, JUDGE

	_______________________________

Before QUINN, C.J., and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.

	MEMORANDUM OPINION

	Appellant, Eric Francis Long, appeals his conviction for possession of a controlled substance over 1 gram but less than 4 grams and sentence of six years incarceration in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.  Appellant’s counsel has filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744-45, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137, 138 (Tex.Crim.App. 1969).  We affirm.

	Appellant plead guilty to the offense of possession of a control substance over 1 gram but less than 4 grams without a plea bargain.  After receiving the plea, the trial court received the pre-sentence investigation report and sentenced appellant to six years incarceration.  There were no pre-trial motions heard by the court prior to the plea being entered.  

	Appellant’s counsel has filed a brief, in compliance with Anders and Gainous, stating that he has diligently reviewed the appellate record and applicable law and is of the opinion that the record reflects no reversible error upon which an appeal can arguably be predicated.  Counsel thus concludes that the appeal is frivolous.  Counsel’s brief presents a summation of the procedural history of the case and discusses why, under the controlling authorities, there is no reversible error in the trial court proceedings and judgment.  See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex.Crim.App. 1978).

	Counsel has attached an exhibit showing that a copy of the Anders brief and motion to withdraw have been forwarded to appellant and that counsel has appropriately advised appellant of his right to review the record and file a pro se response to counsel’s motion and brief.  The clerk of this court has also advised appellant by letter of his right to file a response to counsel’s brief.  Appellant has not filed a response.

	We have made an independent examination of the record to determine whether there are any non-frivolous grounds upon which an appeal could arguably be founded.  See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991).  We have found no such grounds.

	Appellant’s counsel has moved for leave to withdraw.  See Johnson v. State, 885 S.W.2d 641, 645 (Tex.App.–Waco 1994, writ ref’d).  We carried the motion for consideration with the merits of the appeal.  Having considered the merits and finding no reversible error, appellant’s counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted1 and the trial court’s judgment is affirmed.

						Mackey K. Hancock

						         Justice

Do not publish.
103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 183

AN ACT

To authorize the President to award a gold medal

public.bronze duplicates of such medal for sale to theSkelton, and to provide for the production ofon behalf of the Congress to Richard ‘‘Red’’
103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 183

AN ACT

To authorize the President to award a gold medal on behalf

of the Congress to Richard ‘‘Red’’ Skelton, and to provide for the production of bronze duplicates of such

medal for sale to the public.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•S 183 ES

1 SECTION 1. FINDINGS.

2 The Congress finds the following:

3 (1) Richard ‘‘Red’’ Skelton has provided gen4 erations with the gift of laughter, driven by his pas5 sion to instill happiness in the hearts of others;

6 (2) Red Skelton, a true patriot, supported the

7 United States Armed Forces during World War II

8 by selling a record number of United States war

9 bonds, serving as a private in the United States

10 Army, and working arduously to lift the morale of

11 his fellow soldiers; and

12 (3) Red Skelton, who worked his way from pov13 erty to success, has shared his talent and his wealth

14 with numerous charities, in an effort to help those

15 less fortunate than himself.

16 SEC. 2. CONGRESSIONAL GOLD MEDAL.

17 (a) PRESENTATION AUTHORIZED.—The President is

18 authorized to present, on behalf of the Congress, a gold

19 medal of appropriate design to Richard ‘‘Red’’ Skelton in

20 recognition of his exemplary performance as an enter21 tainer and a humanitarian.

22 (b) DESIGN AND STRIKING.—For the purposes of the

23 presentation referred to in subsection (a), the Secretary

24 of the Treasury (hereafter in this Act referred to as the

25 ‘‘Secretary’’) shall strike a gold medal with suitable em-
3

•S 183 ES

1 blems, devices, and inscriptions to be determined by the

2 Secretary.

3 SEC. 3. DUPLICATE MEDALS.

4 The Secretary may strike and sell duplicates in

5 bronze of the gold medal struck pursuant to section 2

6 under such regulations as the Secretary may prescribe,

7 and at a price sufficient to cover the costs thereof, includ8 ing labor, materials, dies, use of machinery, overhead ex9 penses, and the cost of the gold medal.

10 SEC. 4. NATIONAL MEDALS.

11 The medals struck pursuant to this Act are national

12 medals for purposes of chapter 51 of title 31, United

13 States Code.

14 SEC. 5. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS; PROCEEDS

15 OF SALE.

16 (a) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is

17 hereby authorized to be charged against the Numismatic

18 Public Enterprise Fund an amount not to exceed $30,000

19 to pay for the cost of the medal.
4

•S 183 ES

1 (b) PROCEEDS OF SALE.—Amounts received from the

2 sales of duplicate bronze medals under section 3 shall be

3 deposited in the Numismatic Public Enterprise Fund.

Passed the Senate May 27 (legislative day, April

19), 1993.

Attest:

Secretary.
#### In the Matter of Mohamed T. Metropolitan Hospital, Respondent, v Mohamed T., Appellant.

[54 NYS3d 390]

Appeal from order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan *511M. Kenney, J.), entered on or about September 14, 2016, which granted petitioner’s request for respondent’s continued retention for a period not to exceed 15 days from the date of the order, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as moot.

Respondent challenges the continuation of his civil commitment under Mental Hygiene Law § 9.39, asserting a failure of proof that he posed a substantial risk of physical harm to himself or others or that violent behavior placed others in reasonable fear of serious physical harm *(see Matter of Rueda v Charmaine D.,*17 NY3d 522, 529-530 [2011]).

However, subsequent to the continuation of the commitment, respondent was released, thereby mooting the controversy. The exceptions to the mootness doctrine are inapplicable because respondent failed to demonstrate that a continuation of a civil commitment under Mental Hygiene Law § 9.39, based on inadequate evidence, was likely to recur *(see Matter of Young [Jacobi Med. Ctr.],*124 AD3d 443, 444 [1st Dept 2015]).

Nonetheless, were we to reach the merits here, we note that petitioner Metropolitan Hospital failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that respondent posed a substantial risk of physical harm to himself or others or that his behavior placed others in reasonable fear of physical harm. In particular, the trial court erroneously in relied on her observations of a non-testifying family member to conclude that respondent should remain in the hospital.

Concur—Sweeny, J.R, Renwick, Andrias, Feinman and Gesmer, JJ.
Comment Info: =================

General Comment:Exemption No. 9903A
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

BARRY FINE and RICHARD BARON,

Appellants,

v.

WENDY FINE and BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION, d/b/a

MERRILL LYNCH BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION,

Appellees.

No. 4D2023-1575

[December 21, 2023]

Appeal of nonfinal order from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth 

Judicial Circuit, Martin County; Michael Joseph McNicholas, Judge; L.T. 

Case No. 432023CA000084CAAXMX. 

Jerrell Breslin and Jonathan Noah Schwartz of Schwartz Breslin, 

Attorneys at Law, Miami, for appellants.

William R. Ponsoldt, Jr., of Wright, Ponsoldt & Lozeau, Stuart, for 

appellee Wendy Fine.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

KLINGENSMITH, C.J., GERBER and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Exhibit
23





[Letterhead
of Turlington and Company, L.L.P.]





CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT
REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM





To the
Board of Directors


First
South Bancorp, Inc.


Washington,
North Carolina





We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement (No.
333-151337, No. 333-132623, No. 333-49759 and No. 333-104144) on Form S-8 of
First South Bancorp, Inc. and Subsidiary of our report dated March 8, 2010 with
respect to the consolidated statements of financial condition of First South
Bancorp, Inc. and Subsidiary as of December 31, 2009 and 2008, and the related
consolidated statements of operations, changes in stockholders’ equity, and cash
flows for the years ended December 31, 2009, 2008 and 2007, which report appears
in the annual report on Form 10-K of First South Bancorp, Inc..





/s/  Turlington
and Company, L.L.P.





Lexington,
North Carolina


March 8,
2010
#### Com. v. Zaledzieski

11/10/2015

392 MAL (2015)

Denied
Virginia welcomes first female infantry officer
 
  By Sgt. 1st Class Terra Gatti, Virginia National Guard Public Affairs
  (Editor’s Note:  The story below is reposted from Va. National Guard news, Issue #3, 2019 Commonwealth's Guardian bi-weekly newsletter Feb. 8, 2019 and features First Lt. Candice Bowen, the Virginia National Guard’s first female infantry officer.The Virginia National Guard recently expanded its presence on Defense Supply Center, Richmond, Virginia, after building its Joint Force Headquarters on center, May 14, 2018.)  FORT BENNING, Ga — On Feb. 1, 2019, 1st Lt. Candice Bowen graduated from the U.S. Army’s Infantry Basic Officer Course and became the Virginia National Guard’s first female infantry officer. She joins a small group of other women who have successfully completed training at Fort Benning to become infantry Soldiers and officers since the career field was opened to women in 2016.  “This isn’t really for me,” Bowen said. “This is important for the people who are coming after me.”  Bowen graduated from IBOLC alongside 187 of her peers at the Maneuver Center of Excellence at Fort Benning, Georgia. During the ceremony, her father, a retired Army sergeant major, pinned a blue infantry cord to her uniform, signifying her new career field.  “My dad has been there with me through this whole journey,” Bowen said, explaining that her father had been there for her first Junior ROTC parade and every military milestone since. Bowen graduated and earned her commission from Penn State. Her dad was there for that, too, rendering the final salute of his active duty military career to his daughter on the day of her commissioning.  Read more: https://go.usa.gov/xENwz
INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF HAWAI'I

#### Tanaka v. Santiago

CAAP-13-0000014

07/16/2014

Affirmed in part and Vacated and Remanded in part