alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

CORNELIUS SMITH, et al., )

 )

Plaintiffs, )

 )

v. ) CIVIL ACTION 14-0107-WS-B

 )

WERNER ENTERPRISES, INC., )

 )

Defendant. )

ORDER 

Plaintiff David Foster and the defendant have filed a joint motion for 

approval of settlement agreement. (Doc. 122). “When employees bring a private 

action for back wages under the FLSA, and present to the district court a proposed 

settlement, the district court may enter a stipulated judgment after scrutinizing the 

settlement for fairness.” Lynn’s Food Stores, Inc. v. United States, 679 F.2d 1350, 

1353 (11th Cir. 1982). “[T]he rule of Lynn’s Food Stores applies to settlements 

between former employees and employers” just as it does to agreements by current 

employees. Nall v. Mal-Motels, Inc., 723 F.3d 1304, 1307 (11th Cir. 2013). 

The Court is unusually familiar with this case, as it has entered numerous 

rulings on the substantive motions presented by the parties, and the Court has no 

difficulty in concluding that the settlement is fair and reasonable. The Court also 

determines that the releases and confidentiality provisions satisfy the standards 

articulated by the Court in Crabtree v. Volkert, Inc., 2013 WL 593500 (S.D. Ala. 

2013). 

Case 1:14-cv-00107-WS-B Document 127 Filed 07/27/15 Page 1 of 2
2

For the reasons set forth above, the joint motion for approval of settlement 

agreement is granted. The parties are ordered to submit, on or before August 17, 

2015, a proposed stipulated judgment in accordance with governing law.

1

DONE and ORDERED this 27th day of July, 2015.

s/ WILLIAM H. STEELE

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 1 The Court anticipates that the settlement agreements and releases will be 

executed, and the settlement checks received by the plaintiffs, well before this deadline. 

Case 1:14-cv-00107-WS-B Document 127 Filed 07/27/15 Page 2 of 2
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2024 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2024

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Department of 
      Education, English Language Assistance for fiscal year 2024.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 29, 2023

Mr. Biggs (for himself, Mr. Rosendale, Mr. Gaetz, Mr. Good of Virginia, 
   Mr. Roy, and Mr. Crane) introduced the following bill; which was 
        referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Department of 
      Education, English Language Assistance for fiscal year 2024.

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

SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR DEPARTMENT OF 
              EDUCATION, ENGLISH LANGUAGE ASSISTANCE FOR FISCAL YEAR 
              2024.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, amounts authorized 
to be appropriated or otherwise available for Department of Education, 
English Language Assistance for fiscal year 2024 may not exceed $0.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1969 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1969

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Department of 
 Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 
 National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health for fiscal year 
                                 2024.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 29, 2023

Mr. Biggs (for himself, Mr. Rosendale, Mr. Gaetz, Mr. Good of Virginia, 
   Mr. Roy, and Mr. Crane) introduced the following bill; which was 
        referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Department of 
 Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 
 National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health for fiscal year 
                                 2024.

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

SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH 
              AND HUMAN SERVICES, CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND 
              PREVENTION NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND 
              HEALTH FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, amounts authorized 
to be appropriated or otherwise available for Department of Health and 
Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention National 
Institute for Occupational Safety and Health for fiscal year 2024 may 
not exceed $336,300,000.
                                 <all>
```
## In **T he**  **Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo**  No. 07 - 23 - 00050 - CV MOHAMMMAD QUDDOOS MAHMOOD , A PPELLANT V. AMANDA SUE SLAHETKA , APPELLEE On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1 Williamson County, Texas Trial Court No . 19 - 3679 - FC1 , Honorable Daniel H. Mills , Presiding 

### March 14 , 2023 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before QUINN, C.J., and PARKER and YARBROUGH, JJ. In September 2022, Appellant, Mohammad Quddoos Mahmood, filed a petition to modify the parent - child relationship. His attorney later moved to withdraw as counsel and the trial court granted the motion. Mahmood, now proceeding pro se, appeals from the2 trial court’s Order on Motion for Withdrawal of C ounsel . 1 We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. Generally, appellate courts only have jurisdiction over final judgments that dispose of all pending parties and claims . Lehmann v. Har - Con Corp ., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). We have jurisdiction to consider immediate appeals of interlocutory orders only if a statute explicitly provides appellate jurisdiction. Stary v. DeBord , 967 S.W.2d 352, 352 – 53 (Tex. 1998). The trial court has not ente red a final judgment in this case. And, a n order granting a motion to withdraw of counsel is not an appealable interlocutory order . Davis v. Alcatel USA, Inc ., No. 05 - 07 - 00060 - CV, 2007 Tex. App. LEXIS 1079, at *1 (Tex. App. — Dallas Feb. 15, 2007, no pet.) (per curiam) (mem. op.) (citing T EX . C IV . P RAC . & R EM . C ODE A NN . § 51.014(a)). By letter of February 8, 2023 , we notified Mahmood that it did not appear that a final judgment or appealable order had been issued by the trial court and directed him to show how we have jurisdiction over th is appeal. Mahmood has not filed a response or had any further communication with this Court to date. Because Mahmood has not presented this Court with a final judgment or appealable order, t h e appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See T EX . R. A PP . P . 42.3(a). Per Curiam

1 Originally appealed to the Third Court of Appeals, th is appeal was transferred to this Court by the Texas Supreme Court pursuant to its docket equalization efforts. See T EX . G OV ’ T C ODE A NN . § 73.001.
12091.

#### ESTES *v.*PALMETTO COTTON MILLS.

The evidence authorized a finding that there was such performance on the part of one of the parties and such acceptance on the part of the other as to take the contract out of the statute of frauds.

*610Tlie seller was entitled to recover as damages the difference between the contract price and the market price of the goods at the date of the breach of the contract.

Decided April 13, 1921.

Complaint; from Campbell superior court — Judge Hutcheson. November 8, 1920.

Application for certiorari was denied by the Supreme Court.

*J. F. Goliglitly,*for plaintiff in error.

*Claude C. Smith,*contra.

Luke, J.

In this case Palmetto Cotton Mills sought to recover from Estes the difference between the contract price and the market price of certain cotton duck. It was alleged, that Estes purchased 100 bales of cotton duck to be delivered within a certain time, and that he ordered out only 48 bales, the remaining 52 bales being kept stored by Palmetto Cotton Mills, subject to the order and shipping directions of Estes; that some time after the time for the ordering out of the remainder purchased, Estes, in response to a request for shipping instructions, notified Palmetto Cotton Mills that he would not order out any more of the cotton duck nor give any further shipping instructions, unless the price was reduced from the agreed price; whereupon Palmetto Cotton Mills brought this suit for the difference between the contract price and the market price at the time of the breach of the contract. The defendant denied the making of the contract, and denied any indebtedness, and pleaded that if such a contract was made it was not in writing, and was therefore within the statute of frauds and unenforceable. The jury found a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, the defendant’s motion for a new trial was overruled, and the movant excepted. The evidence authorized the verdict. The jury were authorized to find from the evidence, both oral and documentary, that the contract as set up by the plaintiff was made, and that there was such performance upon the part of one and such acceptance by the other as to take the agreement or contract out of the statute of frauds. The plaintiff, under the Civil Code (1910), § 4131, had the right to recover the difference between the contract price and the market price at the date of the breach of the contract, as damages for the breach of the contract. The charge of the court, when read in its entirety, is not subject to the objections or criticisms *611urged in the various assignments of error upon the excerpts from the charge of the court, or upon the refusal or failure to charge. For no reason assigned did the court err in overruling the motion for a new trial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Broyles, O. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.*
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1867 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1867

   To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Senate, 
  Senators' Official Personnel and Office Expense Accounts for fiscal 
                               year 2024.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 29, 2023

Mr. Biggs (for himself, Mr. Rosendale, Mr. Gaetz, Mr. Good of Virginia, 
   Mr. Roy, and Mr. Crane) introduced the following bill; which was 
           referred to the Committee on House Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Senate, 
  Senators' Official Personnel and Office Expense Accounts for fiscal 
                               year 2024.

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

SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR SENATE, SENATORS' 
              OFFICIAL PERSONNEL AND OFFICE EXPENSE ACCOUNTS FOR FISCAL 
              YEAR 2024.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, amounts authorized 
to be appropriated or otherwise available for Senate, Senators' 
Official Personnel and Office Expense Accounts for fiscal year 2024 may 
not exceed $429,000,000.
                                 <all>
```
#### J. H. Porter’s Adm’r *v.*John B. Castleman.

Covenants of Warranty — Compromise—Answer.

An action for breach of covenants that a vessel is free of liens and incumbrance, settles nothing where compromised, and which did not result in a judgment.

*20Compromise.

An agreement by the owner in a suit between tbe owner of such, vessel and lien holder, to recognize the existence of a lien and pay the same by way of compromise, does not admit the validity of such lien in an action for breach of covenants.

Answer.

A party sued for breach of covenants may answer that there were no liens, notwithstanding that the covenantee has admitted and paid such liens by way of compromise and to avoid litigation.

APPEAL PROM LOUISVILLE CHANCERY COURT.

June 30, 1874.

Opinion by

Judge Lindsay :

Appellant complains of a breach of appellee’s covenants, that the steamer, Pink Varble, was, when sold, “free of any and every lien, privilege or incumbrance.” The proceedings in the district court at Memphis, Tenn., did not result in judgment, and hence do not establish the existence of the claims asserted therein by the libel-ants. The fact that appellee compromised with the parties asserting their claims, proves nothing, as he had the right to escape even unfounded litigation by buying his peace, and it may have been, and doubtless was, much cheaper to compromise than to make successful defense.

The answer of Castleman, so far as he attempts to deny the existence of the liens in favor of Downs, etc., is as specific as are the allegations of the petitions; and appellants cannot complain that their general averments to the effect that there were such liens, were not taken for confessed. The testimony of Johnson does not establish a contract of affreightment between the parties of the Pink Varble and any of the parties claiming to be salvors of the cotton taken from the wreck of the W. A. Caldwell. The best evidence as to the nature of the agreements between the master of the Varble and Downs and Johnson are the receipts given to each of them. These receipts were not produced, nor is there anything in the record explaining their contents. The whole testimony tends to show that Downs, Johnson and the officers and crew of the Varble were the joint salvors of the cotton, and that it was carried to Memphis on their joint account. There is certainly no such contract proven as would bind the boat. This view of the case makes it unnecessary to examine the remaining questions presented in the agreement. It is clear that appellee is not bound to *21make good the loss resulting to appellant from every claim that parties may choose to assert against the boat.

*■Havian,*Wilson, *for appellant.*

Boyle, *for appellee.*

Judgment *affirmed.*
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Roy Edward EVANS, Appellant.

No. 79-1975.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 12, 1980.

Decided Feb. 19, 1980.

*1196Robert H. Rice, Rice, Durso & Rice, Belle-ville, 111., for appellant.

Robert D. Kingsland, U. S. Atty. and Frederick R. Buckles, Asst. U. S. Atty., St. Louis, Mo., for appellee.

Before HEANEY, Circuit Judge, GIBSON, Senior Circuit Judge, and STEPHENSON, Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant-appellant Roy Edward Evans was found guilty by a jury of violating 18 U.S.C. § 2315, concealing or storing goods, the value of which is $5,000 or more, and which have moved in interstate commerce, knowing the same to have been stolen.1

The sole issue on appeal is whether the government proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the property with which defendant was charged with possessing under 18 U.S.C. § 2315 had a value of $5,000 or more. We affirm the district court.2

A review of the transcript reveals that the government’s case included four witnesses who identified the exhibits in the case as pieces of jewelry, coins and silverware that were stolen from their homes. The government then put on a witness who testified that defendant tried to sell him some items of jewelry and silverware in June 1979. An FBI agent then testified that all of the exhibits identified by the four witnesses as items stolen from their homes were items that were seized on June 4, 1979, as defendant was attempting to sell them.

Finally, the government put on a jeweler who testified that he had (1) examined and valued some silver and jewelry in June of 1979 at the request of the FBI; (2) that the exhibits in the instant case were some of the items that he had looked at and valued in June of 1979 for the FBI; (3) that the value of the exhibits collectively was more than $5,000 at the time of trial and in June of 1979; (4) that, individually, he would estimate the value of “just the jewelry” exhibits to be “easily” $15,000; (5) that, individually, he would estimate the hollow-ware silver to be valued at at least $5,000 and the flatware, spoons and forks, etc., to be valued at at least $10,000; (6) and finally, that exhibit K-41, a pitcher, was worth approximately $1,200 individually.

We find this sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the items which were identified as being in defendant’s possession in June of 1979 were worth more than $5,000. *See United States v. Wigerman,*549 F.2d 1192 (8th Cir. 1977).

We affirm the district court.

1

. Defendant was sentenced to ten years.

2

. The Honorable H. Kenneth Wangelin, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1938 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Department of Labor, 

Office of Workers’ Compensation Benefits, Special Benefits for fiscal 

year 2024. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 29, 2023 

Mr. BIGGS (for himself, Mr. ROSENDALE, Mr. GAETZ, Mr. GOOD of Virginia, 

Mr. ROY, and Mr. CRANE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce 

A BILL 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Department of Labor, Office of Workers’ Compensation 

Benefits, Special Benefits for fiscal year 2024. 

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

3 SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR 

4 DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, OFFICE OF WORK5 ERS’ COMPENSATION BENEFITS, SPECIAL 

6 BENEFITS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024. 

7 Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, 

8 amounts authorized to be appropriated or otherwise avail9 able for Department of Labor, Office of Workers’ ComVerDate Sep 11 2014 03:12 Apr 14, 2023 Jkt 039200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H1938.IH H1938

pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 1938 IH

1 pensation Benefits, Special Benefits for fiscal year 2024 

2 may not exceed $230,000,000. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
No. 87-6452.

#### Estrada *v.*United States.

C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.
Exhibit 12.2
 Doral Financial Corporation
Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges and Preferred Stock Dividends
 For the Quarter EndedMarch 31, 2008Including Interest on DepositsEarnings:Pre-tax income from continuing operations
    
    $
    (2,926
    )Plus:Fixed Charges (excluding capitalized interest)
    
    
    89,710Total Earnings
    
    $
    86,784Fixed Charges:Interest expensed and capitalized
    
    $
    89,017Amortized premiums, discounts, and capitalized
expenses related to indebtedness
    
    
    47An estimate of the interest component within rental expense
    
    
    646Total Fixed Charges before preferred dividends
    
    
    89,710Preferred dividends
    
    
    (8,325
    )Ratio of pre tax income to net income
    
    
    1.273Preferred dividend factor
    
    
    (10,598
    )Total fixed charges and preferred stock dividends
    
    $
    79,112Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges and Preferred Stock Dividends
    
    
    1.10Excluding Interest on DepositsEarnings:Pre-tax income from continuing operations
    
    $
    (2,926
    )Plus:Fixed Charges (excluding capitalized interest)
    
    
    47,062Total Earnings
    
    $
    44,136Fixed Charges:Interest expensed and capitalized
    
    $
    46,369Amortized premiums, discounts, and capitalized
expenses related to indebtedness
    
    
    47An estimate of the interest component within rental expense
    
    
    646Total Fixed Charges before preferred dividends
    
    
    47,062Preferred dividends
    
    
    (8,325
    )Ratio of pre tax income to net income
    
    
    1.273Preferred dividend factor
    
    
    (10,598
    )Total fixed charges and preferred stock dividends
    
    $
    36,464Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges and Preferred Stock Dividends
    
    
    1.21
### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN NO. 03-0 6 -00 748 -CR
Jo ni N ic oleG ugi no , A ppe lla nt

v . The State of Texas, App ellee F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF B ELL COUNTY , 27TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. 5805 5 , HO NORAB LE JACK R. MILLER , JUDGE PRESIDI NG ME MO R

A ND UMO P I N I O N Ap p el l ant’s motion to dism iss this appea l is gra nted. SeeT e x. R. Ap p . P. 42.2(a) . The a ppeal is dismissed.

__________________________________________ J an P. Patterson, J ustice Be fore J ustices Patterson, Pember ton and Waldrop Dismissed on Appellant’s Motion Filed: De cembe r 21, 2006 Do No t Pu

bli sh
Ab initio description of spatiotemporal dynamics of multi-level atoms resonantly 

coupled to plasmonic materials 

Maxim Sukharev
 

Department of Applied Sciences and Mathematics, Arizona State University
 

Mesa, AZ 85212
 

Abstract 

The research in plasmonics has been centered at linear optics of plasmonic structures with several 

attempts to go beyond linear regime and consider nonlinear properties of materials including 

noble metal nanoparticles aiming for a wide variety of nonlinear phenomena to appear. A newly 

emerging research field of nonlinear plasmonics takes two obvious routes, namely, combining 

linear plasmonic systems with highly nonlinear media or taking into account strongly 

inhomogeneous electromagnetic fields associated with surface plasmons that lead to spatial 

dependence of conductive electron density in metals and hence result in nonlinear phenomena 

such as second harmonic generation. The first route deals with nonlinear media at the 

macroscopic level while even a single atom or molecule located near plasmonic structure at 

resonant conditions may be considered as a nonlinear optical system due to high electromagnetic 

near-fields. For example, it is well known that a two-level atom exposed to strong resonant EM 

radiation has an average dipole moment that may be written as a sum over odd powers of the 

electric field amplitude. Such dipole coupled to plasmon fields via polarization currents in 

Maxwell equations results in a nonlinear optical system and obviously is able to lead to new 

venues of research now including nonlinear optics. It thus important to develop approach capable 

of capturing both size effects at the nanoscale and the time dynamics of electromagnetic fields. 

Generally speaking, such approach has to take into account Maxwell equations capturing 

electromagnetic waves and quantum dynamics of atoms or molecules in the vicinity of plasmonic 

materials. The latter can be accomplished by employing Bloch formalism. The resulting system 

of coupled Maxwell-Bloch equations contains the most accurate description of nonlinear 

phenomena driven by surface plasmon waves. I will discuss new concepts of atom-plasmon 

interactions at the nanoscale based on rigorous numerical solutions of self-consistent full-wave 

vector Maxwell-Bloch equations in two and three dimensions. Various nonlinear phenomena such 

as self-induced transparency will be considered. I will also discuss the Brumer-Shapiro scheme of 

coherent control implemented at the nanoscale.