alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>
 


<ARTICLE>                     5
<RESTATED>

       

<S>                               <C>                  <C>            
<PERIOD-TYPE>                     12-MOS               12-MOS          
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                 DEC-31-1995          DEC-31-1996   
<PERIOD-START>                    JAN-01-1995          JAN-01-1996   
<PERIOD-END>                      DEC-31-1995          DEC-31-1996              
<CASH>                             3,266,388            2,986,123     
<SECURITIES>                               0                    0
<RECEIVABLES>                      1,335,645            2,258,936  
<ALLOWANCES>                               0                    0    
<INVENTORY>                          166,955              229,298
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                   4,836,459            5,607,982    
<PP&E>                            10,073,215           17,585,571    
<DEPRECIATION>                     2,194,164            3,237,684     
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                    16,878,182           23,689,421     
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>              1,100,626            4,304,909     
<BONDS>                                    0                    0     
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                      0                    0      
<PREFERRED>                                0                    0   
<COMMON>                             113,948              118,143   
<OTHER-SE>                                 0                    0   
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>      16,878,182           23,689,421   
<SALES>                            7,867,393           12,357,165   
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                   7,867,393           12,357,165   
<CGS>                              2,645,730            3,735,669   
<TOTAL-COSTS>                      5,059,530            6,941,284   
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                      26,995                6,311   
<LOSS-PROVISION>                           0                    0   
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                    51,967               84,517   
<INCOME-PRETAX>                    2,872,325            5,452,006 
<INCOME-TAX>                       1,100,000            2,067,500 
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                1,772,325            3,384,506 
<DISCONTINUED>                             0                    0 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                            0                    0 
<CHANGES>                                  0                    0 
<NET-INCOME>                       1,772,325            3,384,506 
<EPS-PRIMARY>                            .16                  .29
<EPS-DILUTED>                            .15                  .28
        

</TABLE>
Document No. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

VS CASE NO. 3:97cr24 LAC

GUS JONES

REFERRAL AND ORDER

Referred to Judge Lacey Collier on July 21, 2008 

Motion/Pleadings: OBJECTION TO COURT’S ORDER / REQUEST RECONSIDERATION

OF DENIAL OF DEFT’S TITLE 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) MOTION 

Filed by DEFENDANT PRO SE on7/21/08 Doc.# 114

RESPONSES:

on Doc.#

on Doc.#

Stipulated Joint Pldg.

Unopposed Consented

WILLIAM M. McCOOL, CLERK OF COURT

s/Mary Maloy

LC (1 OR 2) Deputy Clerk: Mary Maloy

ORDER

Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is ORDERED this 22

nd day of

July, 2008, that:

(a) The relief requested is DENIED.

(b) 

 s/L.A. Collier

LACEY A. COLLIER

Senior United States District Judge

Entered On Docket: By: 

Rules 58 & 79(a) FRCP or 32(d)(1) & 55 FRCRP

Copies sent to:

Case 3:97-cr-00024-LC-MD Document 115 Filed 07/22/08 Page 1 of 1
#### § 3200.2 Eligibility.

Institutions that are eligible to receive Federal excess personal property pursuant to the provisions of this part are the 1890 Land Grant Institutions (including Tuskegee University), 1994 Land Grant Institutions, and the Hispanic-Serving Institutions conducting research, educational, technical, and scientific activities or related programs.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2531 Engrossed in House (EH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 2531

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
    To prohibit the Internal Revenue Service from asking taxpayers 
      questions regarding religious, political, or social beliefs.

    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 ``Protecting Taxpayers from Intrusive 
IRS Requests Act''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON QUESTIONS REGARDING RELIGIOUS, POLITICAL, OR 
              SOCIAL BELIEFS.

    (a) In General.--The Internal Revenue Service shall not ask any 
taxpayer any question regarding religious, political, or social 
beliefs.
    (b) Sense of Congress Regarding Exceptions.--It is the sense of 
Congress that--
            (1) any exceptions to subsection (a) which are provided by 
        later enacted provisions of law should identify the specific 
        questions which are authorized, the class of taxpayers to which 
        such questions are authorized to be asked, and the 
        circumstances under which such questions are authorized to be 
        asked, and
            (2) if the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service 
        determines that asking any class of taxpayers a question 
        prohibited under subsection (a) would aid in the efficient 
        administration of the tax laws, such Commissioner should submit 
        a report to Congress which--
                    (A) includes such question in the verbatim form in 
                which it is to be asked,
                    (B) describes the class of taxpayers to whom the 
                question is to be asked, and
                    (C) describes the circumstances that would be 
                required to exist before the question would be asked.

            Passed the House of Representatives February 25, 2014.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
113th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 2531

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

    To prohibit the Internal Revenue Service from asking taxpayers 
      questions regarding religious, political, or social beliefs.
```
39–008 

108TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session 108–772 

WAIVING REQUIREMENT OF CLAUSE 6(a) OF RULE XIII WITH RESPECT TO 

THE SAME DAY CONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN RESOLUTIONS REPORTED 

BY THE RULES COMMITTEE 

OCTOBER 9 (legislative day, OCTOBER 8), 2004.—Referred to the House Calendar and 

ordered to be printed 

Mr. SESSIONS, from the Committee on Rules, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany H. Res. 846] 

The Committee on Rules, having had under consideration House 

Resolution 846, by a non-record vote, report the same to the House 

with the recommendation that the resolution be adopted. 

SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS OF THE RESOLUTION

The resolution waives clause 6(a) of rule XIII (requiring a twothirds vote to consider a rule on the same day it is reported from 

the Rules Committee) against certain resolutions reported from the 

Rules Committee. The rule applies the waiver to any special rule 

reported on or before the legislative day of November 20, 2004, providing for consideration or disposition of any of the following measures: (1) A bill or joint resolution making continuing appropriations 

for the fiscal year 2005, an amendment thereto, or a conference report thereon; and (2) A bill or joint resolution making general appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, an 

amendment thereto, or a conference report thereon. 

Æ
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 96-40449

Summary Calendar

__________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

FELIX MEDINA,

 Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. L-96-CV-28

- - - - - - - - - -

July 29, 1996

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Felix Medina, #54420-079, appeals from the district court's

dismissal of his motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his

sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Medina has filed with

this court a request to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on

appeal. Medina argues that the civil forfeiture of his property

and his subsequent sentence of incarceration constituted multiple
No. 96-40449

-2-

punishments for the same offense in violation of the Double

Jeopardy Clause. We have reviewed the record and conclude that 

Medina has not demonstrated that he will present a nonfrivolous

issue on appeal. Accordingly, Medina's motion to proceed IFP on

appeal is DENIED and the appeal is DISMISSED. See Carson v.

Polley, 689 F.2d 562, 586 (5th Cir. 1982); 5th Cir. R. 42.2.
§ 319.8-2 Permit procedure. ( a ) Except as otherwise provided for in §§ 319.8-10 and 319.8-18, permits shall be obtained for importations into the United States of all cotton and covers. Permits will be issued only for cotton and covers authorized entry under §§ 319.8-6 through 319.8-20. Persons desiring to import cotton or covers under §§ 319.8-6 through 319.8-20 shall, in advance of departure of such material from a foreign port, submit to the Plant Protection and Quarantine Programs an application for a permit in accordance with §§ 319.7 through 319.7-5 . Applications to import cottonseed shall state the approximate quantity and the proposed United States port of entry. Applications to import lint, linters, or waste shall state whether such materials are compressed.
( b ) Applications to import lint, linters, or waste at a port[1] other than one in the North, in California, or on the Mexican Border shall also specify whether the commodity is compressed to high density.
( c ) Upon receipt of an application to import lint, linters, waste, or covers, without treatment, for utilization under agreement as defined in § 319.8-8(a)(2), an investigation will be made by an inspector to determine that the receiving mill or plant is satisfactorily located geographically, is equipped with all necessary safeguards, and is apparently in a position to fulfill all precautionary conditions to which it may agree. Upon determination by the inspector that these qualifications are fulfilled, the owner or operator of the mill or plant may sign an agreement specifying that the required precautionary conditions will be maintained. Such signed agreement will be a necessary requisite to the release at the port of entry of any imported lint, linters, waste, or covers for forwarding to and utilization at such mill or plant in lieu of vacuum fumigation or other treatment otherwise required by this subpart. Permits for the importation of such materials will be issued in accordance with paragraph (a) of this section.
( d ) Permits for importation of any cotton or covers are conditioned upon compliance with all of the conditions specified in the permit and any applicable regulations or administrative instructions of this part.
( e ) Pending development of adequate treating facilities in Guam, any cotton or covers that are subject to treatment as a condition of entry therein must first be entered and treated in accordance with the requirements of this subpart at a U.S. port of arrival where such treating facilities are available.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 0579-0049) [24 FR 10788, Dec. 29, 1959, as amended at 48 FR 57466, Dec. 30, 1983; 78 FR 25570, May 2, 2013; 79 FR 19811, Apr. 10, 2014] Footnotes -
319.8-2
[1] Including ports in Guam, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands of the United States.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

BALWINDER KAUR DHILLON,

Petitioner,

v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney

General

,

Respondent. No. 15

- 70669

Agency No. A079

- 268

- 243

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted June 24 , 2021 * *

Before: GRABER, FRIEDLAND, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.

Balwinder Kaur Dhillon

, a native and citizen of India

, petitions for review of

the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reopen

proceedings.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

JUN 28 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 15

- 70669

We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of

discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Cano

- Merida v. INS , 311 F.3d 960,

964 (9th Cir. 2002). We deny the petition for review.

We previously denied Dhillon’s petition for review of the agency’s

determination that she was not eligible for asylum, withholding of removal, or

protection under the Convention Against Torture. Dhillon v. Holder , 561 F. App’x

633 (9th Cir. 2014) (unpublished). We now conclude that t he BIA did not abuse

its discretion by denying her untimely motion to reopen. As the BIA observed

,

Dhillon did not introduce new evidence that reflects materially changed

circumstances in India or that would likely have changed the outcome of her case

.

8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A), (C) ; 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1); see Young Sun Shin v.

Mukasey , 547 F.3d 1019, 1025 (9th Cir. 2008) (“ [Petitioners] who s eek to remand

or reopen proceedings to pursue relief bear a ‘heavy burden’ of proving that, if

proceedings were reopened, the new evidence would likely change the result in the

case

. ” (quoting Matter of Coelho , 20 I. & N. Dec. 464, 473 (BIA 1992)) )

.

T he temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the

mandate.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2577 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2577

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify the definition of 
 applicable large employer for purposes of the employer mandate in the 
              Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 28, 2013

   Mr. Messer (for himself and Mr. Young of Indiana) 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 modify the definition of 
 applicable large employer for purposes of the employer mandate in the 
              Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

    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 ``Small Business Job Protection Act of 
2013''.

SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF APPLICABLE LARGE EMPLOYER.

    (a) In General.--Section 4980H(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
1986 is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (2)(A), by striking ``at least 50'' and 
        inserting ``at least 100''; and
            (2) in paragraph (2)(B), by striking ``50'' each place it 
        occurs and inserting ``100''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) shall 
take effect as if included in the amendments made by section 1513 of 
the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
                                 <all>
```
### Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA

- 

### 2011

- 1096 Directorate Identifier: 

### 2011

-NM

- 185

-AD If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If they do not, click (or Tab) into a nd then out of the changed cell

. **Estimated Costs:**  Action (e.g., Inspection, replacement) Do not include on

condition costs here Costs per **Product** (e.g., aircraft, engine,

propeller, appliance) Work

- h ours (include access, testing, and close

- up) Labor

c ost ( @ $8 5 /h our) Part s Cost Total Costs ( labor + parts) Number of

**U.S. Registered**  **Products** Total Cost

for U

. S

. Fleet 

### Eddy Current Inspection 1 .0 $ 85.00 $ 85.00 

### 6 $ 510.00 

### Fluorescent Penetrant Inspection 15.0 $1,275.0 0 $ 1,275.00 

### 6 $7,650.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.0 0 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.0 0 

### The known number of products in compliance: Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $8,160 

### Costs covered under warranty ( if known ) $ **On -**  **Condition Costs:** Action (e.g., Inspection, replacement) Work

- h ours

(include access, testing, and close

up) Labor cost

( @ $8 5 /hour) Parts Cost Cost per Product


### Replacement (per lug) 1.0 $ 85.00 $2,880 $2,965.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

### Special considerations for Economic Analysis ( Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table that was assum ed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs) 

### : **Executive Order 12866:** Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”? YES * NO
* Explanation: **DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:** Is the AD significant? YES * NO
* Explanation: **Regulatory Flexibility Act:** Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Explain for either a Yes or No answer. YES NO Explanation: **Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:** This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? YES * NO 

### * Explanation 

### :
#### TIVNAN, Respondent, v. KEAHON, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

June 25, 1906.)

Action by Patrick Tivnan against Patrick H. Keahon. F. ]D. Fishel, for appellant. J. Fl. O'Brien, for respondent.

No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. Order filed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                       5,234,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                6,675,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   690,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            13,883,000
<PP&E>                                       2,462,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                 698,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              19,864,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,378,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     25,000
<COMMON>                                        64,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  16,201,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                19,864,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            27,607,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            26,715,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              99,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                793,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                    65,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            728,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   728,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.03)
        

</TABLE>
DISCIPLINARY CASES

2005-0748.

#### Disciplinary Counsel v. Carpino.

This cause came on for further consideration upon the filing by counsel for respondent of a motion to reconsider imposition of costs. Upon consideration thereof,

IT IS ORDERED by this court that the motion is granted and board costs in this matter are hereby waived.
Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed February 4, 2020
.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 18

- 00690

- CV

KEEBLE LOVALL AND LIZ YOUNG , Appellant s V. U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, NOT IN ITS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY BUT SOLE L Y AS TRUSTEE FOR THE RMAC TRUST,

SERIES 2016

- CTT , Appellee
On Appeal from County Court at Law No. 5

Fort Bend County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 18

- CCV

- 061841

MEMORANDUM OPINION This is an appeal from a final judgment signed July 26, 2018 . Appell ant s’ brief was due December 1 2 , 2019. No brief or motion to extend time to file the brief was filed.
On December 1 9 , 2019 , the court ordered appellant s to file a brief by January 13 , 2020

. We cautioned that if appellant s failed to comply with our order, we would2

dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b). No brief or motion to extend time to file the brief was filed. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed

.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Zimmerer, Spain, and Hassan
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

VS CASE NO. 3:98cr24-01/RV

STERLING WESTBERRY 

REFERRAL AND ORDER

Referred to Senior Judge Roger Vinson on November 18, 2008

Motion/Pleadings: Motion to Reduce Sentence (re Retroactive Application of Sentencing

Guidelines to Crack Cocaine Offense 18 USC 3582) 

Filed by Defendant on 3/7/2008 Doc.# 84 

RESPONSES:

 United States on 3/20/2008 Doc.# 85

on Doc.#

Stipulated Joint Pldg.

Unopposed Consented

WILLIAM M. McCOOL, CLERK OF COURT

 s/Jerry Marbut

LC (1 OR 2) Deputy Clerk: Jerry Marbut

ORDER

Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is ORDERED this 21st day of

 November , 2008, that:

(a) The relief requested is DENIED.

(b) The defendant’s sentencing guideline range is not affected by 

Amendment 706.

 /s/ Roger Vinson

ROGER VINSON

Senior United States District Judge

Case 3:98-cr-00024-RV-MD Document 115 Filed 11/21/08 Page 1 of 1