alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Company — L-3 Communications Corporation, including its divisions and subsidiaries.     Deferral Account — The bookkeeping account maintained by the Company for eachParticipant which is credited with any (a) Deferred Base Salary and Deferred IncentiveBonus made on behalf of the Participant, and (b) earnings on those amounts.     Deferral Agreement — The annual agreement executed or otherwise acknowledged by anEligible Employee under procedures prescribed by the Company under which the Eligible Employeeelects to defer Base Salary and/or Incentive Bonus for a calendar year.     Deferred Base Salary — The amount of Base Salary deferred and credited to aParticipant’s Deferral Account for a calendar year.     Deferred Incentive Bonus — The amount of Incentive Bonus deferred and credited to aParticipant’s Deferral Account for a calendar year.     Eligible Employee — An employee who is subject to U.S. income taxes for a calendaryear and who is eligible for an MIB award for such calendar year and whose Base Salary for acalendar year equals or exceeds the dollar amount in Code Section 414(q) shall be an EligibleEmployee for such year. The Committee shall limit participation in this Plan to employees whom theCommittee believes to be a select group of management or highly compensated employees within themeaning of Title I of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended. Whether anindividual is an Eligible Employee shall be determined each calendar year.     Incentive Bonus — The incentive bonus amount awarded to an Eligible Employee for acalendar year under the MIB.     MIB — The formal or informal program of the Company under which an employee receivesan annual incentive bonus.     Open Enrollment Period — The period of time during which an Eligible Employee maymake an election to participate in the Plan for a calendar year as determined by the Company. TheOpen Enrollment Period for an Employee who is a Participant shall end no later than December 31 ofthe year preceding the calendar year for which the Deferral Agreement is made. The Open EnrollmentPeriod for an employee who is first eligible to participate in the Plan mid-year either because heor she is newly hired or newly promoted shall begin on the date such individual is first notifiedby the Company that he or she is eligible to participate and shall end 30 days after such date.     Participant — An Eligible Employee who enters into a Deferral Agreement. An EligibleEmployee who enters into a Deferral Agreement shall continue to participate in this Plan until hisor her Deferral Account balance has been fully distributed.     Plan — This L-3 Communications Corporation Deferred Compensation Plan II.L-3 Communications Corporation
Case 3:05-cv-01149-M Document 15 Filed 12/01/05 Page 1 of 1 PageID 40
No. 29,382.

#### A. F. Roberts, *Appellee,*v. The Board of County Commissioners of the County of Nemaha and The State Highway Commission, *Appellants.*

(298 Pac. 754.)

Opinion filed May 9, 1931.

*Roland Boynton,*of Emporia, for the state highway commission, and *Harry*A. *Lanning,*county attorney, for the appellants.

*James L. Haley,*of Sabetha, and *M. A. Bender,*of Holton, for the appellee.

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Burch, J.:

The action was one by a contractor to recover for material furnished and labor performed pursuant to a contract with the board of county commissioners to construct a state highway. Judgment was rendered for plaintiff against the county and the state highway commission, and in the event the county should *16pay the judgment, for the county against the state highway commission. Defendants appeal.

The errors assigned are without merit.. In particular, the stock assignment which serves as an excuse for unwarranted appeals, that there was no substantial evidence to support the judgment, is trifling.

One item for which plaintiff recovered was material furnished which was rejected, as plaintiff claimed, in bad faith. As bearing on the question of bad faith, the result of a laboratory test of the material, made at a laboratory other than the testing laboratory at Manhattan, was properly received in evidence. The county was liable for material furnished pursuant to the contract, which was wrongfully rejected. Judgment was properly rendered against the county with whom the contract was made, and against the state highway commission because of liability assumed pursuant to R. S. Supp. 68-418.

The judgment is affirmed.
Gregory WRIGHT v. CITY OF GADSDEN

CR-16-0803

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

October 6, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
John FRANCES, Appellant, v. BAYOU BREEZE CONDOMINIUM a/k/a Pensacola Executive House Condominium, Inc.; Its Officers, Directors, Agents, Servants, and/or Employees Individually and/or in Their Official Capacities; Charles D. Cross ; Bobby J. Trammel; and Kathie W. Petkovic, Appellees.

No. 1D17-4837

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 29, 2019 Rehearing Denied May 15, 2019

FLORIDA DECISIONS WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINIONS

Affirmed.
III 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. CON. RES. 33 

Commending the heroism of Olathe East High School Administrator Dr. 

Kaleb Stoppel and School Resource Officer Erik Clark in responding 

to a student armed with a firearm. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 10 (legislative day, MARCH 7), 2022 

Mr. MORAN (for himself and Mr. MARSHALL) submitted the following 

concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Commending the heroism of Olathe East High School Administrator Dr. Kaleb Stoppel and School Resource Officer Erik Clark in responding to a student armed with 

a firearm. 

Whereas, on Friday, March 4, 2022, 2 employees of Olathe 

East High School in Olathe, Kansas, Administrator Dr. 

Kaleb Stoppel (referred to in this preamble as ‘‘Dr. 

Stoppel’’) and School Resource Officer Erik Clark (referred to in this preamble as ‘‘Officer Clark’’), were shot 

and wounded while engaging with an armed student; 

Whereas the decision of Dr. Stoppel to remove the student 

from class and the swift response of Officer Clark to neutralize the student after he began shooting prevented the 

loss of innocent lives at Olathe East High School; 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•SCON 33 IS 

Whereas Officer Clark has been a school resource officer at 

Olathe East High School for 7 years and a law enforcement officer for 15 years; and 

Whereas Dr. Stoppel has been an Assistant Principal and the 

Athletic Director of Olathe East High School for nearly 

4 years and an educator for nearly 13 years: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 

2 concurring), That the Senate— 

3 (1) commends Administrator Dr. Kaleb Stoppel 

4 and School Resource Officer Erik Clark for their he5 roic actions to protect students and staff of Olathe 

6 East High School; and 

7 (2) recognizes Administrator Dr. Kaleb Stoppel 

8 and School Resource Officer Erik Clark for their 

9 years of dedication and service to their community 

10 as an educator and a member of law enforcement, 

11 respectively. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
N OTE : This o rder is non precedential.


# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________
PHILIP L. RICE, Claimant

- Appellant,

v.

ROBERT A. MCDONALD, SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, Respondent

- Appellee.

______________________

2014

- 7113

______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in No. 13

- 1083, Chief Judge Bruce E. Kasold.

______________________

ON MOTION

______________________

O R D E R

Philip L. Rice moves for a 30

- day extension of time, until September 24, 2014, to file his principal brief.

Upon consideration thereof,

I T I S O RDERED T HAT : The motion is granted. Case: 14-7113 Document: 6 Page: 1 Filed: 09/04/2014RICE v. MCDONALD 2

F OR THE C OURT

/s/ Daniel E. O’Toole Daniel E. O’Toole Clerk of Court

s27 Case: 14-7113 Document: 6 Page: 2 Filed: 09/04/2014
Michael GRIDER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-1901

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed April 5, 2019.

Michael Grider, pro se.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Helene S. Parnes, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

NORTHCUTT, KELLY, and ATKINSON, JJ., Concur.
Case 3:05-cv-01620-B Document 10 Filed 12/16/05 Page 1 of 1 PageID 45
Dempsey PENDARVIS v. Doherty Michael JARREAU and Susan M. Jarreau

NO. 2018-C-0103

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 2, 2018

Denied.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

COURTNEY MITHAUGEN, §

Petitioner, §

 § 

VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO.4:05-CV-406-Y

 §

FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, §

Respondent. § 

 ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

Before the Court is the petition for writ of habeas corpus

under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 of petitioner Courtney Mithaugen, along with

the October 6, 2005, findings, conclusions, and recommendation of

the United States Magistrate Judge. The magistrate judge gave the

parties until October 27 to file written objections to the

findings, conclusions, and recommendation. As of the date of this

order, no written objections have been filed. 

The Court has reviewed the pleadings and the record in this

case, and has reviewed for clear error the proposed findings,

conclusions and recommendation of the United States Magistrate

Judge filed on October 6, 2005. The Court concludes that the

petition for writ of habeas corpus should be dismissed for the

reasons stated in the magistrate judge's findings and conclusions.

 Therefore, the findings, conclusions and recommendation of

the magistrate judge are ADOPTED.

 Courtney Mithaugen’s petition for writ of habeas corpus under

28 U.S.C. § 2241 is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.

SIGNED November 7, 2005.

 

 Case 4:05-cv-00406-Y Document 8 Filed 11/07/05 Page 1 of 1 PageID 126
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 01-51157

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

FRANCISCO JAVIER SALAS-GAYTAN,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. DR-01-CR-209-1-FB 

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

June 19, 2002

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Francisco Javier Salas-Gaytan appeals the sentence imposed

following his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United

States after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He

contends that the sentence is invalid because it exceeds the

two-year maximum term of imprisonment prescribed in 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326(a). Salas-Gaytan complains that his sentence was

improperly enhanced pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) based on

his prior deportation following an aggravated felony conviction. 

He argues that the sentencing provision violates the Due Process
No. 01-51157 

-2-

Clause. Alternatively, Salas-Gaytan contends that 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326(a) and 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) define separate offenses. He

argues that the aggravated felony conviction that resulted in his

increased sentence was an element of the offense under 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326(b)(2) that should have been alleged in his indictment. 

In Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235

(1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in

8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of

separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing

provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47. 

Salas-Gaytan acknowledges that his arguments are foreclosed by

Almendarez-Torres, but asserts that the decision has been cast

into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). 

He seeks to preserve his arguments for further review. 

Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi,

530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984

(5th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1202 (2001). This court

must follow Almendarez-Torres “unless and until the Supreme Court

itself determines to overrule it.” Dabeit, 231 F.3d at 984

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The judgment of

the district court is AFFIRMED.

The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of

filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks

that the judgment of the district court be affirmed and that an

appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED. 

AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK>  0001056239
<NAME> L-3 COMMUNICATIONS HOLDINGS, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                          42,788
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  387,288
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (13,933)
<INVENTORY>                                    110,818
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               567,707
<PP&E>                                         191,409
<DEPRECIATION>                                  50,438
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,633,771
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          318,306
<BONDS>                                        605,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       483,694
<OTHER-SE>                                      99,481
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,633,771
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,405,462
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,254,976
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              60,590
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 95,430
<INCOME-TAX>                                    36,741
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             58,689
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    58,689
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.83
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.75



</TABLE>
Kara Allya O'CONNELL, DOC #T90885, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D16-1801

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed January 30, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Language Line, Inc. (the Company) for the quarter ended March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Dennis G. Dracup, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:



|(i) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
|--- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(ii) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Language Line, Inc.
|---- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date: May 12, 2005



/s/ Dennis G. DracupDennis G. DracupChief Executive Officer and Director(Principal Executive Officer)




The foregoing certification is
being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being filed as part of this Report.



20
Virginia MARTINEZ, Appellant, v. CHANEL, INC., Appellee.

No. 3D18-357

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed March 20, 2019

**FLORIDA DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Mary Jean ZISKA, Appellant, v. 21ST MORTGAGE CORPORATION, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-1909

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed December 19, 2018.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Page | 1

Hudson M. Jobe

Quilling, Selander, Lownds, Winslett & Moser, P.C.

2001 Bryan Street, Suite 1800

Dallas, Texas 75201

(214) 871-2100 (Telephone)

(214) 871-2111 (Telefax)

PROPOSED ATTORNEYS FOR THE DEBTOR

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

IN RE: §

§

HIGHLAND SELECT §

EQUITY MASTER FUND, L.P. § CASE NO: 23-31037-swe7

§ (Chapter 11)

DEBTOR. §

NOTICE OF HEARING

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Debtor’s Motion to Transfer/Reassign Case (the 

“Motion”) [Docket No. 9], filed on June 12, 2023, is scheduled to be heard on July 19, 2023, at 

10:00 a.m. in the courtroom of the Honorable Scott W. Everett, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge, at the 

United States Bankruptcy Court, 1100 Commerce Street, 14th Floor, Courtroom #3, Dallas, 

Texas 75242. Parties may appear in person or by WebEx video conferencing as follows:

For WebEx Video Participation/Attendance:

Link: https://us-courts.webex.com/meet/everett

For WebEx Telephonic Only Participation/Attendance:

Dial-In: 1-650-479-3207

Access Code: 476 420 189

A copy of Judge Everett’s WebEx Hearing Instructions is attached hereto.

Case 23-31037-swe7 Doc 14 Filed 06/30/23 Entered 06/30/23 15:56:06 Desc Main

Document Page 1 of 2
Page | 2

Respectfully submitted,

QUILLING, SELANDER, LOWNDS, WINSLETT 

& MOSER, P.C.

2001 Bryan Street, Suite 1800

Dallas, Texas 75201

(214) 871-2100 (Telephone)

(214) 871-2111 (Facsimile)

By: /s/ Hudson M. Jobe 

 Hudson M. Jobe 

 State Bar No. 24041189

PROPOSED ATTORNEYS FOR DEBTOR

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on June 30, 2023, a true and correct copy of the foregoing Notice has 

been served by electronic transmission via the Court’s CM/ECF system upon all parties 

registered to receive electronic notice in this bankruptcy case and via first-class mail on the 

parties listed on the mailing matrix attached hereto. 

 /s/ Hudson M. Jobe

Hudson M. Jobe

Case 23-31037-swe7 Doc 14 Filed 06/30/23 Entered 06/30/23 15:56:06 Desc Main

Document Page 2 of 2
Tanisha PHILLIPS, Appellant, v. PNS STORES, INC., Appellee.

No. 3D18-1059

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed April 17, 2019 Rehearing Denied May 22, 2019

Bartlett Legal, PLLC, and Philip Bartlett, for appellant.

Mintzer Sarowitz Zeris Ledva & Meyers LLP, and Allison C. Heim, Tampa, and Nicole M. Sarasua, Miami, for appellee.

Before LOGUE, SCALES, and MILLER, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

*1164Affirmed. *See**Ledo v. Seavie Res., LLC*, 149 So.3d 707, 710 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) (affirming order striking pleadings where the court repeatedly informed the party of the need to respond to discovery and that failure to do so would result in sanctions including the striking of his pleadings, and the record clearly reflected that the failure to respond was the result of willful and deliberate disregard of the court's orders).
Salle BELL, in her capacity as guardian of the property of the minor children K.P. and K.M., Appellant, v. Tye WEISENFLUH, as personal representative of the Estate of Kristen Weisenfluh, deceased; and Bayfront HMA Medical Center, LLC, d/b/a Bayfront Health-St. Petersburg, Appellees.

Case Nos. 2D17-4454 2D17-5149 CONSOLIDATED

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed April 24, 2019.

FLORIDA DECISIONS WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINIONS

Affirmed.
I 

119TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 237 

To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to deem foods containing xylitol as misbranded unless the label or labeling of such foods 

contains a warning specifying the toxic effects of xylitol for dogs if 

ingested, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 7, 2025 

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

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to 

deem foods containing xylitol as misbranded unless the 

label or labeling of such foods contains a warning specifying the toxic effects of xylitol for dogs if ingested, 

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, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Paws Off Act of 

5 2025’’. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 237 IH

1 SEC. 2. XYLITOL LABEL AND LABELING REQUIREMENTS. 

2 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 403 of the Federal Food, 

3 Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 343) is amended by 

4 adding at the end the following: 

5 ‘‘(z) If it is a food that contains xylitol, unless the 

6 label or labeling of such food contains a warning specifying 

7 the toxic effects of xylitol for dogs if ingested.’’. 

8 (b) RULEMAKING.— 

9 (1) INTERIM RULE.—Not later than 6 months 

10 after the date of enactment of this Act, the Sec11 retary shall issue an interim final rule to carry out 

12 the amendment made by subsection (a). 

13 (2) FINAL RULE.—Not later than 1 year after 

14 the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary 

15 shall issue a final rule to carry out the amendment 

16 made by subsection (a). 

17 (c) SECRETARY DEFINED.—In this section, the term 

18 ‘‘Secretary’’ means the Secretary of Health and Human 

19 Services, acting through the Commissioner of Food and 

20 Drugs. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS