alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"NASA","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/nasamigrate\/","title":"NASA Announces Advanced Composite Research Partnership","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"R8zNeKgWd6\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/news-release\/nasa-announces-advanced-composite-research-partnership-2\/\">NASA Announces Advanced Composite Research Partnership<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/news-release\/nasa-announces-advanced-composite-research-partnership-2\/embed\/#?secret=R8zNeKgWd6\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“NASA Announces Advanced Composite Research Partnership” — NASA\" data-secret=\"R8zNeKgWd6\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/02\/nasa_logo_press_release.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":300}
<PAGE>


                                                                    Exhibit 99.1

                             Geerlings & Wade, Inc.
                               960 Turnpike Street
                           Canton, Massachusetts 02021

                                                         March 29, 2002


U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20549


   Re: Confirmation of Receipt of Assurances from Arthur Andersen LLP

Ladies and Gentlemen:

Arthur Andersen LLP ("Arthur Andersen") has audited the financial statements of
Geerlings & Wade, Inc. (the "Company") as of December 31, 2001 and for the year
then ended and has issued its report thereon dated March 26, 2002. The Company's
Annual Report on Form 10-K includes such financial statements.

Please be advised that Arthur Andersen has represented to the Company that the
audit was subject to its quality control system for the U.S. accounting and
auditing practice to provide reasonable assurance that the engagement was
conducted in compliance with professional standards and that there was
appropriate continuity of Arthur Andersen personnel working on the audit,
availability of national office consultation and availability of personnel at
foreign affiliates of Arthur Andersen to conduct the relevant portions of the
audit.

                                      Respectfully submitted,



                                      /s/ David R. Pearce
                                      -------------------------------------
                                      David R. Pearce
                                      President, Chief Executive Officer
                                      and Chief Financial Officer
#### Henderson *v.*Reed.

A plea, rejected on motion, is no part of the record, unless made so by a bill of exceptions.

if a plea show, on its face, that it is a sham plea, it should be rejected on motion.

APPEAL from the *Marion*Circuit Court. — Debt by *Reed,*against *Henderson*on a writing obligatory; and judgment against the defendant by default.

*Rariden,*for the appellant.

*Fletcher,*for the appellee.

Holman, J.

The only error assigned in this case is, that the Circuit Court refused to let the defendant file a certain plea, which is copied in the record: and it is said that the defendant excepted to the opinion of the Court rejecting it; but there is no bill of exceptions, and the plea is no part of the record. If the plea were before us, so that we could take legal notice of it, we might see strong ground, to suppose the Circuit Court knew it was a sham plea; and if so, they were bound to reject it (1).

*Per Curiam.*

The judgment is affirmed, with 6 *•per cent,*damages and costs.

(1)

 The practice of sham pleading, that is, pleading for delay matter known, by the pleader to be false, is too common in Courts of justice. One of the most usual pleas of this description, is that of a judgment already recovered for the same cause of action. Some cases have occurred where, upon an affidavit of their falsity, such pleas have been treated as nullities; but the most recent decisions are, that a motion to sign judgment for want of a plea, founded on such an affidavit, cannot be supported, if the plea be not on ifa *348face objectionable. It is said, that the Court cannot require an apparently fair plea to be verified by affidavit — which is the effect of these motions— in the case of pleas required by statute to be sworn to, or where a discretion is given to the Court, as on application for leave to plead double. *Merrington*v. Bechet, 2 Barn. & Cress. *81.*— Smith v. Backwell, 4 Bing. 512. When a plea however is, on its face, a sham plea, and, like that in *Blewitt*v. *Marsden,*10 East, 237, a mockery of the proceedings of the Court, the plaintiff will be permitted to treat it as a nullity, and sign judgment as for want of a plea. *Smith*v. Bachwell, supra.
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

__________ District of __________ 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Plaintiff(s)

v. Civil Action No.

Defendant(s)

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION

To: (Defendant’s name and address)

A lawsuit has been filed against you.

Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you

are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ.

P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney,

whose name and address are:

If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. 

You also must file your answer or motion with the court.

CLERK OF COURT

Date:

Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk

Case 2:16-cv-00087-JJT Document 3 Filed 01/15/16 Page 1 of 2
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)

Civil Action No.

PROOF OF SERVICE

(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))

This summons for (name of individual and title, if any)

was received by me on (date) .

’ I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)

on (date) ; or

’ I left the summons at the individual’s residence or usual place of abode with (name)

, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,

on (date) , and mailed a copy to the individual’s last known address; or

’ I served the summons on (name of individual) , who is

 designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization)

on (date) ; or

’ I returned the summons unexecuted because ; or

’ Other (specify):

.

My fees are $ for travel and $ for services, for a total of $ .

I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.

Date:

Server’s signature

Printed name and title

Server’s address

Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:

Case 2:16-cv-00087-JJT Document 3 Filed 01/15/16 Page 2 of 2
#### Alex McIlvain *v.*S. A. Day.

Same — Evidence Conflicting — Case for Jury.

Where the evidence is conflicting and the jury has been properly instructed, their finding will not be disturbed.

APPEAL FROM FLEMING CIRCUIT COURT.

April 21, 1869.

Opinion oF the Court by

Judge Williams:

This was a suit against Day upon a note executed to John D. Secrest and assigned by him to appellant, for $474.95, dated October 3, 1860, due November 5, thereafter, and purporting to be *592signed by *”E. Davis and Day,”*to which Day responded that he was not the partner of Davis in the purchase of bogs from Secrest, for which he claimed the note bad been executed, nor bad be signed nor authorized anyone to sign bis name to said note, and denied bis responsibility in any manner for said sum. There were two mistrials, but the jury found for defendant on the third, and the court having adjudged accordingly, McIlvain seeks a reversal.

The evidence now objected to as illegal was permitted to go to the jury without either objection or exception so far as this record shows, it is, therefore, too late now to complain of it, nor could it be taken advantage of on a motion for a new trial. The note reads *“I promise to pay,”*and on its back is endorsed in Secrest’s handwriting *”Davis Note.”*It is abundantly established that the name of Day after E. Davis is not in Day’s handwriting; the preponderating evidence is that there were 63 bogs sold by Secrest, averaging 150 pounds, at $5.25 per 100 pounds; that be took from Davis four bead of cattle at $210 as part pay for the bogs, and that two notes were given, the price of the cattle deducted from the first, and the other note given for half the amount of the bogs. The entire lot of bogs would only come to $496.12, the half of which is $248.06, or, if there bad been but one note given after deducting the price of the cattle it should have been for only $286.12.

Had there been 100 bogs, weighing 200 pounds each, as stated by Secrest, who was a witness, the entire amount would have been $1,100, and the note should have been for $550. If the bogs be estimated by the weight of evidence their value falls far below the amount of the note sued upon, if estimated by Secrest’s evidence the note sued on falls considerably below the proper value of the bogs.

The evidence authorized the jury to find that Day was not Davis’ partner in the purchase of the bogs; that the bogs had been paid for, and that the note in question was not given on the bog purchase; whilst on the other band it would have authorized a contrary finding.

As the evidence was conflicting, it was essentially a case for the decision of the jury, and as the court properly presented the issues, according to the evidence of each party, by instructions, *593we see no cause to disturb the finding or to reverse the judgment.

Wadsworth, *for appellee.*

Cord, *for appellant.*

Wherefore, it is *affirmed.*
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 798 Introduced in House (IH)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 798

To prohibit the issuance of new public debt obligations after December 
                               31, 2001.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 13, 1997

 Mr. Smith of Michigan (for himself, Mr. Neumann, and Mr. Bartlett of 
  Maryland) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To prohibit the issuance of new public debt obligations after December 
                               31, 2001.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Balanced Budget Act of 1997''.

SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON ISSUANCE OF PUBLIC DEBT OBLIGATIONS AFTER 
              DECEMBER 31, 2001.

    No obligation subject to the limitation under section 3101(b) of 
title 31, United States Code, may be issued to the public after 
December 31, 2001. The preceding sentence shall not apply to any 
obligation (or series of obligations) issued to refund an obligation 
issued before January 1, 2002.

SEC. 3. SPECIAL RULE.

    Upon the enactment of a bill or joint resolution declaring war or a 
national emergency, section 1 is suspended for the 6-month period 
beginning upon such date of enactment. Congress and the President may, 
by law, extend such 6-month period if such declaration of war or 
national emergency is still in effect.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                             510
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     1055
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                        519
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  5670
<PP&E>                                           15694
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   22377
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            11332
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            10
<OTHER-SE>                                        6885
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     22377
<SALES>                                          11920
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 11920
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    10253
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 263
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   1463
<INCOME-TAX>                                       310
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               1153
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     43
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      1110
<EPS-BASIC>                                      .11
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .113



</TABLE>
#### Lambert and Another *v.*Blackman.

Where a promissory note in the *French*language, is declared on as if it were in *English,*the variance is immaterial.

If the jury give greater damages than are declared for, and the plaintiff sign judgment for the greater sum, the Court may permit him to amend during the term, by entering a *remittitur*for the excess.

ERROR to the *Vigo*Circuit Court. — Assumpsit on a promissory note. Plea, the general issue. The note was in the *French*language, but was declared on as if it had been in *English.*The variance, at the trial, was held immaterial. The damages were laid in the declaration at 300 dollars. The jury gave a verdict for 322 dollars and 28 cents in damages; for which sum, together with costs, judgment was entered during the terra. Afterwards, in the same term, the plaintiff below, by leave of the Circuit Court, entered a remittitur of 22 dollars and 28 cents, the extra sum.

Holman, J.

One error assigned is, that the note, being in the *French*language, should have been set forth in that language, in the declaration. We are of opinion, that the nature and extent of the obligation created by the note, were all that were requisite in pleading, and these are sufficiently set forth in the. *English*language (1). The entry of the remittitur after judgment, is also assigned for error. A remittitur is most regular *60ly entered before judgment, but it may be entered at any time after judgment, while the proceedings of the term are yet before the Court. And even after a writ of error is sued out, a remittitur may be entered on paying the costs of the writ of error. 1 Sell. Pr. 481. — 2 Sell. Pr. 408 (2).

*Tails*and Blake, for the plaintiffs.

Dewey, for the defendant.

*Per Curiam.*

The judgment is affirmed, with 5 per cent. damages, and costs.

(1)

 The instrument itself must be stated *in terms,*or according to the *legal effect.*If it be in a foreign language, it may nevertheless be stated as if it were in *English,*without noticing the foreign language. *Attorney General*v. *Valabreque,*Wightw. 9. — Chitt. on Bills, Am. Ed. 1821, p. 456. *Aliter,*in case of a libel written in a foreign language; there the plaintiff must set forth the original words, with a translation of them showing their application to him. *Zenobio*v. *Axtell*6 T. R. 162. — Per *Ellenborough,*C. J., in *Cook*v. *Cox, 3*Maule and Selw. 115.

(2)

 Even in a term subsequent to that in which the judgment was *signed.*2 Arch. Pr. *221.*— Usher v. Dansey, 4 Maule and Selw. 94.
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

David Colby and Diana Colby,

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

U. S. Bank National Association ND; et al., 

Defendants. 

No. CV-15-02453-PHX-NVW

ORDER 

 The Court having considered the Parties’ Stipulation for Dismissal with Prejudice 

as to U.S. Bank National Association ND, (Doc. 27) erroneously named as U.S Bank 

National Association ND, and good cause appearing, 

 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED granting the parties’ Stipulation (Doc. 27). 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED this action is dismissed with prejudice as to 

Defendant U.S. Bank National Association with each party to bear its own attorneys’ fees 

and costs. The Clerk shall close this case. 

 Dated this 19th day of April, 2016. 

Neil V. Wake

United States District Judge

Case 2:15-cv-02453-NVW Document 28 Filed 04/19/16 Page 1 of 1
I

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 620

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide that the conducting

of certain games of chance shall not be treated as an unrelated trade

or business.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 5, 1997

Mr. RAMSTAD (for himself, Mr. GUTKNECHT, Mr. LUTHER, Mr. MINGE, Mr.

OBERSTAR, Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota, Mr. SABO, and Mr. VENTO) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways

and Means

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide

that the conducting of certain games of chance shall

not be treated as an unrelated trade or business.

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

3 SECTION 1. CONDUCT OF CERTAIN GAMES OF CHANCE NOT

4 TREATED AS UNRELATED TRADE OR BUSI5 NESS.

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (1) of section 513(f)

7 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to certain
2

HR 620 IH

1 bingo games) is amended by inserting before the period

2 ‘‘or qualified games of chance’’.

3 (b) QUALIFIED GAMES OF CHANCE.—Subsection (f)

4 of section 513 of such Code is amended by adding at the

5 end the following new paragraph:

6 ‘‘(3) QUALIFIED GAMES OF CHANCE.—For pur7 poses of paragraph (1), the term ‘qualified game of

8 chance’ means any game of chance (other than

9 bingo) conducted by an organization if—

10 ‘‘(A) such organization is licensed pursu11 ant to State law to conduct such game,

12 ‘‘(B) only organizations which are orga13 nized as nonprofit corporations or are exempt

14 from tax under section 501(a) may be so li15 censed to conduct such game within the State,

16 and

17 ‘‘(C) the conduct of such game does not

18 violate State or local law.’’

19 (c) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The subsection head20 ing of section 513(f) of such Code is amended by striking

21 ‘‘BINGO GAMES’’ and inserting ‘‘GAMES OF CHANCE’’.

22 (d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by

23 this section shall apply to games conducted after the date

24 of enactment of this Act.

Æ
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Mark A. Garcia","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/markagarcia\/","title":"Expedition 53","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"M6Zz8RsZIM\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/mission\/expedition-53\/\">Expedition 53<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/mission\/expedition-53\/embed\/#?secret=M6Zz8RsZIM\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Expedition 53” — NASA\" data-secret=\"M6Zz8RsZIM\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/exp53-portrait.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":480}