alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
CHIEF JUSTICE CAROLYN WRIGHT
JUSTICES

DAVID L. BRIDGES MOLLY FRANCIS DOUGLASS. LANG ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS ROBERT M. FILLMORE LANA MYERS 

## (!Court of**~ppeals** DAVID EVANS ADA BROWN 

## jfiftb 11Bistrict ofmexas at ilBaUas
CRAIG STODDART BD...L WHITEHILL DAVIDJ. SCHENCK JASON BOATRIGHT

Blake A. Hawthorne, Clerk Supreme Court ofTexas PO Box 12248 Austin, Texas 78711 600COMMERCE STREET, SUITE 200 DALLAS, TEXAS 75202 (214) 712-3400
January 8, 2018

RE: Request to Transfer Original Proceeding Court ofAppeals Number: 05-18-00011-CV Style: In re James Pikl
DearMr. Hawthorne: LISA MATZ CLERK OF THE COURT (214) 712-3450 theclerk@5th.txcourts.gov
GAYLEHUMPA BUSINESS ADMINISTRATOR (214) 712-3434 gayle.humpa@5th.txcourts.gov
FACSIMILE (214)745-1083

INTERNET WWW.TXCOURTS.GOV/5THCOA.ASPX

In accordance with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 16.2 and Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 18b(b)(l), the Justices of the Fifth District Court of Appeals have voluntarily recused themselves and the Court from participating in this case. A copy ofthe recusal order is attached. Therefore, the Court is requesting that the Texas Supreme Court, pursuant to its authority under section 73.001 of the Texas Government Code, transfer the original proceeding to another court ofappeals. The Court appreciates your assistance with this matter.

Enclosures

cc: All counsel ltr:cw
To the Board of Directors and Shareholders of Morgan Stanley: 

 

We have reviewed, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the unaudited interim condensed consolidated financial information of Morgan Stanley and subsidiaries (“Morgan Stanley”) as of August 31, 2006 and for the nine-month periods ended August 31, 2006 and 2005, and have issued our report dated October 6, 2006 (which report included an explanatory paragraph regarding Morgan Stanley’s change in accounting policy for recognition of equity awards granted to retirement-eligible employees and an explanatory paragraph regarding early application of Staff Accounting Bulletin 108, “Considering the Effects of Prior Year Misstatements when Quantifying Misstatements in Current Year Financial Statements”). As indicated in such report, because we did not perform an audit, we expressed no opinion on that information. 

 

We are aware that our report referred to above, which is included in Morgan Stanley’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended August 31, 2006, is incorporated in the Prospectus Supplement of MS Structured TILES Series 2006-1 for the offering of Treasury Index LinkEd Securities (TILESSM) Series 2006-1 due February 15, 2034 (which Prospectus Supplement forms part of Registration Statement No. 333-101155 of MS Structured Asset Corp. on Form S-3 in relation to the TILES Series 2006-1 securities).

 

We also are aware that the aforementioned report, pursuant to Rule 436(c) under the Securities Act of 1933, is not considered a part of the Registration Statement prepared or certified by an accountant or a report prepared or certified by an accountant within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of that Act.

 

/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP

 

New York, New York 

October 6, 2006
<PAGE>   1




                                                                      Exhibit 11

                  SCHEDULE OF COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
                 (In Thousands, Except Share and Per Share Data)
                                   (Unaudited)


                                          Three Months       Three Months
                                              Ended             Ended
                                          September 30       September 30
                                              1997               1996

Primary
-------

Net (Loss)/Income                          $     (993)        $      214
                                           ==========         ==========

Weighted Average Shares Outstanding         8,119,883          7,878,605

Incremental Shares from Assumed
       Exercise of Stock Options                   --            136,746
                                           ----------         ----------

Total Shares                                8,119,883          8,015,351
                                           ==========         ==========


Primary Per Share Amounts
-------------------------

Net (Loss)/Income                          $    (0.12)        $     0.03
                                           ==========         ==========


Fully Diluted *
-------------

Net (Loss)/Income                          $     (993)        $      214
                                           ==========         ==========

Weighted Average Shares Outstanding         8,119,883          7,878,605

Incremental Shares from Assumed
       Exercise of Stock Options                   --            136,746
                                           ----------         ----------

Total Shares                                8,119,883          8,015,351
                                           ==========         ==========


Fully Diluted Per Share Amounts
-------------------------------

Net (Loss)/Income                          $    (0.12)        $     0.03
                                           ==========         ==========


*    Fully diluted earnings per share calculation is presented in accordance
     with Regulation S-K item 601(b)(11) although not required by footnote 2 to
     paragraph 14 of Accounting Principles Board Opinion No. 15 because it
     results in dilution of less than 3%.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET AND STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-01-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      932
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                         79
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 2,161
<PP&E>                                          85,490
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (7,617)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  81,045
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         (77,142)
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                      (47,405)
<OTHER-SE>                                      43,502
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    81,045
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                21,777
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 (14,138)
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (6,697)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (5,987)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (5,045)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (5,045)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    629
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (4,416)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.15)<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.15)
<FN>
<F1>COMMON SHARES OF BENEFICIAL INTEREST EQUIVALENTS WERE ANTI-DILUTIVE. THE
FIGURES PRESENTED ABOVE ARE SIMPLE EPS AND INCLUDED THE EFFECTS OF STOCK
DIVIDENDS DISCOUNTS AND ACCRETION OF DISCOUNTS ON REDEEMABLE CONVERTIBLE
PREFERRED STOCKS.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
#### STATE v. FISHER

No. 62A93-2

Case below: Guilford County Superior Court

Petition by defendant for writ of certiorari to review the order of Superior Court, Guilford County denied 6 November 1997.
Exhibit 10.1


    
      

    


    March
      31,
      2006

    Zann
      Corp,

    


    As
      chairman of Sartam, and with the agreement of the board of Sartam we have come
      to a mutual decision to terminate our licensing
      agreement with Zann Corp. The Exclusive Licensing Agreement between Sartam
      and
      Zann Corp. is hereby terminated.

    


    
      	
              /s/
                James
                Hopkins

            	 
	
              James
                Hopkins 

              Chairman
                & C.O.O of
                Sartam Industries
##### 



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 the Annual Report of CB Bancshares, Inc. (the Company) on
Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Ronald K. Migita,
President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:

(1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.

|    |  |                                      
|--- |  | -------------------------------------
|/s/ |  | RONALD K. MIGITA                     
|   
|    |  | Ronald K. Migita                     
|    |  | President and Chief Executive Officer

November 7, 2003

This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to § 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of §18
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

A signed original of this written statement required by § 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to CB Bancshares, Inc. and will be
retained by CB Bancshares, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>    5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             SEP-27-1997
<PERIOD-START>                SEP-29-1996
<PERIOD-END>                  JUN-28-1997
<CASH>                        156,130
<SECURITIES>                  910,456<F1>
<RECEIVABLES>                 0
<ALLOWANCES>                  0
<INVENTORY>                   0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>              1,655,894
<PP&E>                        0
<DEPRECIATION>                0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                1,655,894
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>         95,588
<BONDS>                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>         0
<PREFERRED>                   0
<COMMON>                      608,293
<OTHER-SE>                    617,213
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>  1,655,894
<SALES>                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>              339,121
<CGS>                         0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                 145,645
<OTHER-EXPENSES>              0
<LOSS-PROVISION>              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>            0
<INCOME-PRETAX>               193,476
<INCOME-TAX>                  85,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>           108,476
<DISCONTINUED>                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>               0
<CHANGES>                     0
<NET-INCOME>                  108,476
<EPS-PRIMARY>                 .18
<EPS-DILUTED>                 0
<FN>
<F1>
United States Treasury Obligations
        


</TABLE>
#### Nat Fisher, Plaintiff, and Joseph Levine, Respondent, v. Morris Lober, Appellant.

Judgment unanimously reversed, on the law and on the facts, and a new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide the event. A jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff in the sum of $3,775.50 upon a cause of action for breach of an alleged oral contract to employ plaintiff as a salesman for the term of one year. Contending there had been a wrongful discharge, plaintiff sought as damages the amount of commissions he would have received from sales to customers during the unexpired period of the contract at the rate of *75$*on each lawn mower sold within a certain territory. In that state of the record, the plaintiff’s failure adequately to establish the quantum of damages and the procedure followed when the jury sought further guidance from the court require the granting of a new trial. There was no proof offered by plaintiff as to the number of lawn mowers sold by defendant during the period for which commissions were sought. The expedient adopted by plaintiff’s attorney of dividing the total gross sales for that period by $48, the average price of lawn mowers sold, to ascertain the number sold — on each of which plaintiff claimed a *75$*commission — was improper and an inadequate method to prove the damages. Moreover, as secondary evidence, the attorney’s unsworn estimate lacked a proper foundation for its introduction. Finally, it appears that in response to the jury’s request for information, the Judge, with the consent of counsel, dictated answers which were transmitted by the clerk to the jurors in the jury room. We disapproved such a practice in *Employers Mut. Ins.*v. *Vi Cesare &• Monaco*(9 A D 2d 379, 385). We reiterate our criticism here. Proper procedure requires that information and instructions to a jury should be given in open court in the presence of counsel. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Rabin, Valente and McNally, JJ.
```
[House Report 112-107]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]


112th Congress                                            Rept. 112-107
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 1st Session                                                     Part 2

======================================================================



 
   RESPONSIBLE CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION REGULATIONS ACT OF 2011

                                _______
                                

 July 19, 2011.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

         Mr. Bachus, from the Committee on Financial Services, 
                        submitted the following

                          SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT

                        [To accompany H.R. 1121]

                    REASONS FOR SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT

    This supplemental report shows the updated information for 
the Committee Consideration of H.R. 1121, as reported, (H. 
Rept. 112-107):

                        COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

    The Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer 
Credit met in open session on May 4, 2011 and ordered H.R. 
1121, the Responsible Consumer Financial Protection Regulations 
Act of 2011, favorably reported to the Full Committee by a 
record vote of 13 yeas and 7 nays (Record vote no. FI-5).
    The Committee on Financial Services met in open session on 
May 12 and 13, 2011 and ordered H.R. 1121, the Responsible 
Consumer Financial Protection Regulations Act of 2011, as 
amended, favorably reported to the House by a record vote of 33 
yeas and 24 nays (Record vote no. FC-32).

                                  

```
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 5 (Friday, January 8, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 1526]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-00138]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993 --ASTM International Standards

    Notice is hereby given that on December 14, 2020 pursuant to 
Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 etseq. (``the Act''), ASTM International 
(``ASTM'') has filed written notifications simultaneously with the 
Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing additions 
or changes to its standards development activities. The notifications 
were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting 
the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified 
circumstances. Specifically, ASTM has provided an updated list of 
current, ongoing ASTM activities originating between September 22, 2020 
and December 14, 2020 designated as Work Items. A complete listing of 
ASTM Work Items, along with a brief description of each, is available 
at http://www.astm.org.
    On September 15, 2004, ASTM filed its original notification 
pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice 
published a notice in the Federal Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of 
the Act on November 10, 2004 (69 FR 65226).
    The last notification with the Department was filed on September 
24, 2020. A notice was filed in the Federal Register on October 30, 
2020 (85 FR 68917).

Suzanne Morris,
Chief, Premerger and Division Statistics, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 2021-00138 Filed 1-7-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-P
UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C.  20549



FORM 6-K

REPORT OF FOREIGN PRIVATE ISSUER

PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-16 OR 15d-16

UNDER THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934



Dated February 2, 2006



Commission File Number: 001-14666



MITTAL STEEL COMPANY N.V.

(Translation of registrants name into English)



15th Floor, Hofplein 20

3032 AC Rotterdam

The Netherlands

(Address of principal executive offices)



Indicate by check mark whether the registrant files or will file annual reports under cover Form 20-F or Form 40-F.



Form 20-FxForm 40-Fo



Indicate by check mark if the registrant is submitting the Form 6-K in paper as permitted by Regulation S-T Rule 101(b)(1): _____



Indicate by check mark if the registrant is submitting the Form 6-K in paper as permitted by Regulation S-T Rule 101(b)(7): _____



Indicate by check mark whether the registrant by furnishing the information contained in this Form is also thereby furnishing the information to the Commission pursuant to Rule 12g3-2(b) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.



YesoNox



If Yes marked, indicate below the file number assigned to the registrant in connection with Rule 12g3-2(b):  82-________







| |  | 
| |  | 





---





On February 1, 2006, Mittal Steel Company N.V. issued the press release attached hereto as Exhibit 99.1, which is incorporated herein by reference.

Exhibit List

|Exhibit No.  | Description                                                                                                                      | 
|------------ | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 
|Exhibit 99.1 | Mittal Steel Company N.V.'s press release, dated February 1, 2006, announcing the acquisition of three Stelco Inc. subsidiaries.



---



SIGNATURES

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.

Date: February 2, 2006



| | By: | /s/ Henk Scheffer
| | --- | -----------------
| |     | Name:            
| |     | Title:           



---



Exhibit Index

|Exhibit No.  |                                                                                                                                  | Description
|------------ | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -----------
|Exhibit 99.1 | Mittal Steel Company N.V.'s press release, dated February 1, 2006, announcing the acquisition of three Stelco Inc. subsidiaries.
|             |                                                                                                                                  |            

---
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20
- 6974

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. DAMON EMANUEL ELLIOTT , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Greenbelt

. Peter J. Messitte , Senior District Judge. ( 8:97

- cr - 00053

- PJM

- 1; 8:20

- cv - 01310

- PJM )

Submitted : September 22, 2020 Decided: September 25, 2020

Before NIEMEYER, KEENAN, and FLOYD , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. Damon Emanuel Elliott, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Damon Emanuel Elliott seeks to appeal the district court’s order d ismissing without prejudice his second or successive 28 U.S.C. § 225 5 motion because he did not receive authorization from this court . The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appeal ability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)( B ). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2 ) . When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisf ies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. See Buck v.
Davis , 137 S. Ct. 759, 773

- 74 (2017). When the district court denies relief on proc edural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Gonzalez v. Thaler , 565 U.S. 134, 140

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

. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Elliott has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument beca use the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
No. —, Original.

#### State of New Jersey *v.*A. Mitchell Palmer, Attorney General, et al.

On motion for leave to file original bill.

Motion submitted March 8, 1920.

Order entered March 15, 1920.

*Mr. Thomas F. McCran*for complainant.

Order. Application for leave to file bill granted and process ordered; but should the Attorney General be advised to move to dismiss, a motion to advance the hearing on the motion to dismiss to the earliest practicable day will be entertained, in order that the issues arising from such motion may be considered in connection with the- controversies now under advisement resulting from the original bill filed by the State of Rhode Island and other causes involving kindred questions which are now also under submission.