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

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                 6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                     562,200,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                              453,400,000
<ALLOWANCES>                              (93,100,000)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                         3,858,700,000
<PP&E>                                   7,984,000,000
<DEPRECIATION>                         (1,169,400,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                          17,430,200,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                    2,887,100,000
<BONDS>                                 13,404,700,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                 906,700,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>            17,430,200,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                         1,072,700,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              542,100,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                           417,200,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         448,900,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                          (970,000,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                18,600,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                      (951,400,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                             (951,400,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.00)




</TABLE>
#### IN THE MATTER OF THE PROBATE OF THE ALLEGED CODICIL OF MARY V. STROMING, DECEASED.

See same case below: 12 *N. J. Super.*217.

*Messrs. Haller*«£ *LaiJcs*for the petitioner.

*Messrs. Gollester •& Johnson*for the respondent..

June 29, 1951.

Denied.
No. 10-10562.

#### Fletcher *v.*United States.

C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 11-8858.

#### Lucio *v.*Texas.

Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Certio-rari denied.
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to 10 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 1350 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in connection with the Quarterly Report of
Electronic Game Card, Inc. on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2006,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report") for electronic Game Card, Inc., (the "Company"), the undersigned
hereby certifies that:

1)    to the best of my knowledge, the Report fully complies with the
      requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
      1934; and

2)    to the best of my knowledge, the information contained in the Report
      fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
      result of operations of the Company.


August 10, 2006



/S/ LINDEN J. BOYNE
----------------------------
    LINDEN J. BOYNE
    CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
SUMMARY OF NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTOR COMPENSATION



 Exhibit 10.11 
 SUMMARY OF NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTOR COMPENSATION 
 Cash Compensation 
 The non-employee directors of Kadant Inc. (the “company”) are paid the following cash meeting and retainer fees for serving on its board of
directors: 
  

	 	•	 	 An annual retainer fee of $18,000, payable in monthly installments of $1,500 each. 


  

	 	•	 	 A meeting fee of $1,500 for attending regular meetings of the board of directors in person and $750 for participating in meetings held by telephone in which
substantive action is taken or that last more than one hour. 


  

	 	•	 	 A meeting fee of $500 for attending regularly scheduled committee meetings of the board of directors in person and $250 for participating in committee meetings held
by telephone in which substantive action is taken or that last more than one hour. 


  

	 	•	 	 An annual retainer for chairmen of the following committees: audit committee—$3,000; compensation committee—$2,000; nominating and corporate governance
committee—$1,000. 


  

	 	•	 	 Reimbursement of out-of pocket expenses incurred in attending or participating in meetings of the board of directors or its committees.



 Restricted Stock 
 Non-employee directors of the company also receive 15,000 restricted shares of common stock annually pursuant to an award made in the first quarter of the fiscal year. The restricted shares vest as follows: installments of 1,250 restricted
shares each vest on the last day of each of the company’s fiscal quarters during the year and the remaining 10,000 restricted shares vest only in the event that a change-in-control of the company occurs or is approved prior to the end of the
first quarter of the following fiscal year. The restricted shares are forfeited if the individual is no longer a member of the board of directors on the vesting dates. The vesting on all of the restricted shares accelerate in the event of a
change-in-control of the company. All awards are made under the company’s shareholder-approved equity incentive plans. The terms and conditions governing these awards are stated in the form of restricted stock agreement filed as Exhibit 10.13
to the company’s annual report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 30, 2006. 
 Stock Options 
 Stock options may be granted periodically to non-employee directors under the company’s shareholder-approved equity incentive plans. The size and the
terms of any grant are determined by the compensation committee of the board of directors. In all cases, the exercise price of the option is determined at fair market value on the date of grant. Generally, options are exercisable and vest in three
annual installments on the first three anniversaries of the date of grant, and the option expires seven years from the date of grant.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-12-00077-CV

In re Nathan Hunter

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM TRAVIS COUNTY

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Relator Nathan Hunter, an inmate proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for writ of

mandamus complaining of the trial court’s alleged failure to rule on his motion for judgment

nunc pro tunc. In the motion, Hunter claims that he was denied 40 days of jail-time credit.

Mandamus may issue to compel a trial court to rule on a motion for judgment

nunc pro tunc addressing jail-time credit which has been pending before the court for a reasonable

period of time. See Ex parte Ybarra, 149 S.W.3d 147, 149 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004); In re Sarkissian,

243 S.W.3d 860, 860-61 (Tex. App.—Waco 2008, orig. proceeding). However, to obtainmandamus

relief for the trial court’s refusal to rule on such a motion, a relator must establish: (1) the motion

was properly filed and has been pending for a reasonable time; (2) the relator requested a ruling

on the motion; and (3) the trial court refused to rule. See In re Hearn, 137 S.W.3d 681, 685

(Tex. App.—San Antonio 2004, orig. proceeding). The relator has the burden of providing a record

establishing that his motion has awaited disposition for an unreasonable time. In re Mendoza,

131 S.W.3d 167, 168 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2004, orig. proceeding). Moreover, merely filing

a motion with a district or trial court clerk does not equate to a request that the trial court rule on the

motion. See Hearn, 137 S.W.3d at 685.
Additionally, whether a reasonable amount of time has lapsed is dependent on the

circumstances of each case; “no bright-line demarcates the boundaries of a reasonable time period.”

Ex parte Bates, 65 S.W.3d 133, 135 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2001, orig. proceeding). Courts consider

several factors in determining whether the trial court has unnecessarily delayed a ruling, including

the trial court’s actual knowledge of the motion, its overt refusal to act on it, the state of the

court’s docket, the court’s inherent power to control its docket, and the existence of other judicial

and administrative matters which must be addressed. See id.

Although Hunter has provided this Court with a copy of his motion for judgment

nunc pro tunc, he has otherwise failed to provide us with any correspondence to the district court

requesting a ruling on the motion or any other document demonstrating that the motion was brought

to the district court’s attention and, if so, that the district court has refused to rule on the motion. Nor

has Hunter included anything in the record that would allow us to determine whether a reasonable

amount of time has lapsed since the motion was filed. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.7(a) (relator must file

with petition “a certified or sworn copy of every document that is material to the relator’s claim for

relief and that was filed in any underlying proceeding”).

The petition for writ of mandamus is denied without prejudice. See Tex. R. App.

P. 52.8(a).

___________________________________________

Bob Pemberton, Justice

Before Chief Justice Jones, Justices Pemberton and Rose

Filed: March 1, 2012

2
#### St. Lucie Estates, Inc., a corporation, *Plaintiff in Error,*vs. O. Nobles, as Liquidator of the Seminole Bank, a Florida banking corporation, *Defendant in Error.*

141 So. 893.

En Banc.

Decision filed June 30, 1932.

Petition for rehearing denied September 17, 1932.

*T. T. Oughterson*and *D. G. Smith,*of Stuart, for Plaintiff in Error;

*Smith <& Kamner,*of Stuart, for Defendant in Error.

Per Curiam.

This cause having heretofore been submitted to the Court upon the transcript of the record1 of the judgment herein and briefs rand argument of counsel for the respective parties, and the record having been seen and inspected, and the court being now advised of. its judgment to be given in the premises, it seems to the court that there is no error in the said judgment. It is therefore considered, ordered and adjudged by the court that the said judgment of the Circuit Court be, and the same is hereby, affirmed.

Buford, C.J., and Whitfield, Ellis, Terrell, Brown and Davis, J.J., concur.
Sustainable Futures 

Summary Assessment 

Using 

P2 Framework Models

Chemical Assessed: 

Sanitized Version 

CAS Registry Number: 

Sanitized Version 

Participant Name: 

Cytec Industries Inc. 

Date of Assessment: 

September 2010 

This document was developed to help compile estimation results from U.S. EPA OPPT’s P2 

Framework Models www.epa.gov/oppt/p2framework/ and is used by OPPT during Sustainable 

Futures (SF) training described at www.epa.gov/opptintr/newchems/sustainablefutures.htm. 

Participants in the voluntary SF Pilot Project are asked to submit the information contained in this 

assessment along with their SF PMNs in their choice of format. 

Use of this specific format is not mandatory.
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 162 (Tuesday, August 22, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48957-48958]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-7091]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the 
Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities 
and Exchange Commission will hold the following meeting during the week 
of August 21, 2006:
    A Closed Meeting will be held on Thursday, August 24, 2006 at 2 
p.m.

[[Page 48958]]

    Commissioners, Counsels to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the 
Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the Closed Meeting. 
Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters may also be 
present.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has 
certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth 
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (7), (9)(B), (10) and 17 CFR 200.402(a) 
(3), (5), (7), (9)(ii), and (10) permit consideration of the scheduled 
matters at the Closed Meeting.
    Commissioner Campos, as duty officer, voted to consider the items 
listed for the closed meeting in closed session.
    The subject matters of the Closed Meeting scheduled for Thursday, 
August 24, 2006 will be:

Formal orders of investigation;
Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings of an 
enforcement nature; and
Adjudicatory matters.

    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in 
the scheduling of meeting items.
    For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have 
been added, deleted or postponed, please contact: The Office of the 
Secretary at (202) 551-5400.

    Dated: August 17, 2006.
Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 06-7091 Filed 8-18-06; 11:05 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P
No. 11-9448.

#### Corporal *v.*Morgan, Warden, et al.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
`[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4581 Engrossed in House (EH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4581

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT


 
To provide for the imposition of temporary fees in connection with the 
  handling of complaints of violations of the Perishable Agricultural 
                         Commodities Act, 1930.

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

SECTION 1. FILING AND HANDLING FEES FOR COMPLAINTS OF VIOLATIONS OF 
              PERISHABLE AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES ACT, 1930.

    (a) Temporary Filing Fee Required.--During fiscal years 1995 and 
1996, the Secretary of Agriculture shall require persons who submit 
petitions to the Secretary 
under section 6(a) of the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act, 1930 
(7 U.S.C. 499f(a)), alleging a violation of section 2 of such Act (7 
U.S.C. 499b), to include a filing fee of $60 per petition.
    (b) Temporary Handling Fee Required.--During fiscal years 1995 and 
1996, if the Secretary determines under section 6(a) of the Perishable 
Agricultural Commodities Act, 1930 (7 U.S.C. 499f(a)), that the facts 
contained in a petition described in such section warrant further 
action, the person or persons submitting the petition shall submit to 
the Secretary a handling fee of $300. The Secretary may not forward a 
copy of the complaint to the commission merchant, dealer, or broker 
involved until after the Secretary receives the required handling fee. 
In determining the amount of damages incurred by an injured person or 
persons preparatory to issuing a reparation order under section 7 of 
such Act (7 U.S.C. 499g), the Secretary shall include the amount of any 
handling fee paid by the injured person or persons under this 
subsection.
    (c) Deposit of Fees.--The Secretary shall deposit fees submitted 
under this section into the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act 
Fund.

            Passed the House of Representatives June 16, 1994.

            Attest:






                                                                 Clerk.






103d CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 4581

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

To provide for the imposition of temporary fees in connection with the 
  handling of complaints of violations of the Perishable Agricultural 
                         Commodities Act, 1930.`
No. 11-9784.

#### Quintero *v.*Chandler, Warden.

C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Securities and Exchange Commission

Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities and Exchange Commission will hold the following meeting during the week of August 21, 2006: 

                    A Closed Meeting will be held on Thursday, August 24, 2006 at 2 p.m.                           ( print page 48958)    

Commissioners, Counsels to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the Closed Meeting. Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters may also be present. 

The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (7), (9)(B), (10) and 17 CFR 200.402(a) (3), (5), (7), (9)(ii), and (10) permit consideration of the scheduled matters at the Closed Meeting. 

Commissioner Campos, as duty officer, voted to consider the items listed for the closed meeting in closed session. 

The subject matters of the Closed Meeting scheduled for Thursday, August 24, 2006 will be: 

Formal orders of investigation; 

Institution and settlement of injunctive actions; 

Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings of an enforcement nature; and 

Adjudicatory matters. 

At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in the scheduling of meeting items. 

For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed, please contact: The Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400. 

Dated: August 17, 2006. 

Nancy M. Morris, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 06-7091 Filed 8-18-06; 11:05 am] 

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF**

**THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (SUBSECTIONS (a) AND (b)**

**OF SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE)**

 

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), I, Robert L. Long, Chief Executive Officer of Transocean Inc., a Cayman Islands company (the “Company”), hereby certify, to my knowledge, that:

 

|   | (1) | the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2008 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|--------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

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

 

|                                     |   |        |
|------------------------------------------|--------|-------------|
| Dated:   November 5, 2008 |   |        | /s/ Robert L. Long |
|                                     |   | Name:  | Robert L. Long

Chief Executive Officer |

 

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Transocean Inc. and will be retained by Transocean Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
[No. 3169.]

#### W. T. Stallworth *v.*The State.

1. “ Local Option ” Law—Indictment.—The Legislature had no constitutional authority to prohibit the gift of intoxicating liquors, nor to empower localities to do so by means of the local option law; wherefore an indictment charging a mere gift of liquor is insufficient to charge any offense.

3. Same,—Even when a sham gift but a real sale of the intoxicating liquor is charged as the gravamen of the offense, to be sufficient, the indictment must charge that the gift was made “ with the purpose of evading the law.”

3. Same—Evidence.—Upon questions arising upon the admission of evidence, see *Boone’s case,*10 Texas Court of Appeals, 418; *Prather's case,*12 Id., 401; *Akin's*case, 14 Id., 143.

*346Appeal from the County Court of Falls. Tried below before the Hon. E. C. Stuart, County Judge.

The indictment in this case was transferred from the district to the county court. It charged the appellant with giving away intoxicating liquors in precinct number seven, of Falls county.

A verdict of guilty was returned against the appellant, assessing his punishment at a fine of twenty-five dollars.

The que stions involved in the rulings of this court were presented below in the motion for new trial.

*Goodrich & Clarkson,*for the appellant.

*J. H. Burts,*Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

White, Presiding Judge.

This prosecution and conviction were for' *“*giving away one drink of intoxicating liquor in a precinct where 6 local option ’ had been adopted.” Under the decision of this court in *Holley*v. *The State,*14 Texas Court of Appeals, 505, the indictment states no offense, the Legislature having no authority under the Constitution to prohibit the gift of intoxicating liquor; and even where a sham gift (a sale in fact) is charged as the *gravamen*of the offense, it is essential that the . indictment should charge that the gift was made *“ with the purpose of evading the law”*(local option law). (See Judge Willson’s dissenting opinion in Holley’s case.)

The other questions submitted upon the rulings of the court in admitting the evidence objected to have heretofore been passed upon and decided adversely to the rulings, and the court was in error. *(Boone*v. *The State,*10 Texas Ct. App., 418; *Prather*v. *The State,*12 Texas Ct. App., 401; *Akin*v. *The State,*14 Texas Ct. App., 143.)

Because the indictment charges no offense against the laws óf the State, the judgment is reversed and the prosecution is dismissed.

Opinion delivered May 28, 1884.
#### § 0.414 The Communications Act and other statutory materials.

This publication, with packets of revised pages, contains the Communications Act of 1934, with amendments through 1964; the Administrative Procedure Act, with amendments through 1964; the Judicial Review Act; the Communications Satellite Act of 1962; and selected sections of the Criminal Code pertaining to communications. It also contains indexes to the Communications Act and the Administrative Procedure Act. Persons who do not have ready access to the United States Code, or who refer frequently to these materials, may find this volume to be useful.

[32 FR 10571, July 19, 1967]