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


<ARTICLE>                                                   5

<MULTIPLIER>                                            1,000
       
<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                           9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                 DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                    JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                      SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                                    750
<SECURITIES>                                               15
<RECEIVABLES>                                          28,516
<ALLOWANCES>                                            1,375
<INVENTORY>                                            14,355
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                       70,185
<PP&E>                                                150,991
<DEPRECIATION>                                         84,714
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                        162,648
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                  40,482
<BONDS>                                                38,123
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                       0
<PREFERRED>                                                19
<COMMON>                                                  109
<OTHER-SE>                                             88,846
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                          162,648
<SALES>                                                39,646
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                      144,620
<CGS>                                                  24,576
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                          92,334
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                            0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                           81
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                      2,978
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                         2,968
<INCOME-TAX>                                            1,595
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                     1,374
<DISCONTINUED>                                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        13,269
<CHANGES>                                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                                           14,642
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                            1.41
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            1.41
        


</TABLE>
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER

1331 Broadway, Ste. 400

Tacoma, Washington 98402

(253) 593-6710

ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED MOTION

TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE 1

MAGISTRATE JUDGE THEILER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

ROBERT BROWN,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

NO. CR06-5159

ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED

MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL

DATE AND QUASHING WARRANT

Upon the stipulation of the parties to continue the trial date and quash the warrant

in the above-captioned case, the Court finds that such a continuance would serve the

ends of justice and outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant; therefore,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the trial date be continued to August 14, 2006. 

The resulting period of delay from June 26, 2006, to August 14, 2006, is hereby

excluded for speedy trial purposes under 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(A) and (B).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the warrant issued on June 26, 2006, be

QUASHED.

DONE this 7th day of July, 2006.

A

Mary Alice Theiler

United States Magistrate Judge 

Presented By:

/s/________________________________ /s/_____________________________

Jerome Kuh Captain Glen Templeton 

Attorney for Defendant Special Assistant United States Attorney

Case 3:06-cr-05159-MAT Document 11 Filed 07/07/06 Page 1 of 1
Case No. 14,261.

#### TURNER v. JOHNSON et al.

[2 Cranch, C. C. 287; 1 1 Fish. Pat. Rep. 4.]

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

April Term, 1822.

Patents — Improvements—Notes—Failure or Consideration.

If a person who has made an improvement upon a machine, already patented by another, take out a patent for the whole improved machine, the patent is void; and if knowingly sold as a valid patent, the vendor cannot recover upon a note given for the purchase-money.

Assumpsit, on a promissory note for five hundred dollars [given as part consideration for the purchase of a right to certain letters patent].2

[See Case No. 14,256.]

Mr. Wiley, for plaintiff [Robert Turner].

Key & Dunlop, for defendants -[Johnson & Green].

2

 [From 1 Fish. Pat. Rep. 4.]

THE COURT

(nem. con.) instructed the jury, at the prayer of the defendants’ counsel, “that if they believed from the evidence that the plaintiff sold to the defendant a patent right including ■ an original invention which was known to the plaintiff to have been previously patented to another, together with his, the plaintiff’s improvement on such original invention, for which improvement only the plaintiff was entitled to a patent, and that the defendant bought such patent right ignorant of the original invention having been previously patented to another, and with a belief that he would have an exclusive right to the whole machine, and that the note in question was given as part consideration of such purchase, then it was a fraud on the defendants, and the note void in law.”

Verdict for defendant.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-04-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-15-1997
<CASH>                                          18,733
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   70,800
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,893
<INVENTORY>                                    124,010
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               221,857
<PP&E>                                         277,915
<DEPRECIATION>                                  87,163
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 457,570
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          140,841
<BONDS>                                         90,005
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           221
<OTHER-SE>                                     201,873
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   457,570
<SALES>                                        641,932
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               641,932
<CGS>                                          547,647
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  547,647
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                72,004
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,264
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 19,101
<INCOME-TAX>                                     7,278
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             11,823
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    11,823
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.52
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.52
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 10.14
AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
This Amendment to Employment Agreement entered into as of September 22, 2004,(the “Effective Date”), by and between Remington Oil and Gas Corporation (the“Company”) and                      (the “Executive”).
WHEREAS, the Company entered into an employment agreement with the Executiveeffective                      (the “Employment Agreement”);
WHEREAS, as a result of extensions, the term of the Employment Agreement is setto expire on                     ;
WHEREAS, Paragraph 4.2(3) of the Employment Agreement sets forth theExecutive’s benefits should the Executive terminate his employment with theCompany for Good Reason or his employment is terminated within 24 months of aChange of Control;
WHEREAS, it was the intent of the Compensation Committee and the Board ofDirectors of the Company at the time of execution of the Employment Agreementthat upon the Executive’s termination of employment for the reasons covered inParagraph 4.2(3) of the Employment Agreement, the Executive shall, among otherthings, be entitled, to 2.99 times the sum of his then current Base Salary andthe Targeted Bonus (not subject to reduction);
WHEREAS, Paragraph 4.2(3) of the Employment Agreement as executed makesreference to the terms “two and ninety-nine one hundredths percent” and“(2.99%)” that are inconsistent with the intent of the Employment Agreement;and
WHEREAS, the Compensation Committee of the Board wishes to clarify through thisAmendment to Employment Agreement that upon termination of the Executive’semployment under the conditions contained in Paragraph 4.2(3), the Executiveshall, among other things, be entitled to 2.99 times the sum of his thencurrent Base Salary and the Targeted Bonus (not subject to reduction).
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the agreements of the parties containedherein, it is agreed as follows:
1. Paragraph 4.2(3) of the Employment Agreement, as amended, is herebyamended to read in subpart (b) as follows:   The Company shall pay the Executive as severance pay and in lieu of anyfurther compensation for periods subsequent to the Termination Date, in asingle payment, an amount in cash equal to 2.99 times the sum of (i) theExecutive’s then current Base Salary and (ii) the Targeted Bonus (notsubject to reduction),

 

2. This Amendment to Employment Agreement amends no other terms andprovisions of the Employment Agreement and such terms and provisionsremain in full force and effect. 3. All capitalized terms contained but not defined herein shall havethe meaning assigned in the Employment Agreement, as amended.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have duly executed this Amendment toEmployment Agreement as of the Effective Date.
REMINGTON OIL AND GAS CORPORATION
By:                                                                        
Executive:
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 31.1

                                 CERTIFICATIONS

I, James A. Watt, certify that:

     1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Remington Oil and
Gas Corporation;

     2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement
of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the
statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were
made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

     4. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

          (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
     disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
     ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its
     consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
     entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
     prepared;

          (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure
     controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about
     the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end
     of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

          (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal
     control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most
     recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case
     of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely
     to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial
     reporting; and

     5. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based
on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to
the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

          (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design
     or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
     reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record,
     process, summarize and report financial information; and

          (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
     other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal
     control over financial reporting.

Date: November 6, 2003

         /s/ JAMES A. WATT
--------------------------------------
            James A. Watt
President and Chief Executive Officer
Before the Second Division,

May 17, 1967

No. 67/166.

#### Lipman’s *v.*United States,

protest 63/2633 (New York).

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protest consists of brass strainers similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Davies Turner & Company*v. *United States*(55 Cust. Ct. 488, Abstract 69651), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 May 27, 2014

p0519

Order 

Clerk

May 27, 2014

148225 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 148225

COA: 317374

Wayne CC: 07-011179-FC

JARRHOD STEVEN WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 24, 2013 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26 ORDER DISMISSING § 1983 ACTION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

DEMICKO BILLIE THOMAS, )

)

Plaintiff, ) CASE NO. C05-762RSM-JPD

)

v. )

)

MICHAEL P. MAGAN, ) ORDER DISMISSING § 1983 ACTION

)

Defendant. )

____________________________________)

The Court, having reviewed plaintiff’s amended complaint, defendant’s motion for summary

judgment, the Report and Recommendation of the Honorable James P. Donohue, United States

Magistrate Judge, and the remaining record, does hereby find and ORDER:

(1) The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation.

(2) Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. #31) is GRANTED.

(3) Plaintiff’s amended complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice as to the claims

identified in the Report and Recommendation as being barred by Heck v. Humphrey,

512 U.S. 4477 (1994). Plaintiff’s amended complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice as

to all remaining claims.

Case 2:05-cv-00762-RSM Document 43 Filed 10/25/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26 ORDER DISMISSING § 1983 ACTION

(4) The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to plaintiff, to counsel for defendant,

and to the Honorable James P. Donohue.

DATED this 25th day of October, 2006.

A

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 2:05-cv-00762-RSM Document 43 Filed 10/25/06 Page 2 of 2
Before the First Division,

April 11, 1963

No. 67592.

#### J. E. Bernard & Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 61/6213-11894, etc. (Chicago).

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of glass balls similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Joseph Markovits, Inc.*v. *United States*(45 Cust. Ct. 151, C.D. 2216), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Rashon Ford, Appellant.

[632 NYS2d 484]

—Appeal by the defen*527dant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (DeLury, J.), rendered October 27,1993, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Since no objection was raised at trial, the defendant’s claims with respect to the court’s charge are unpreserved for appellate review *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Nuccie,*57 NY2d 818). In any event, the charge, when read as a whole, conveyed the proper legal principles to the jurors *(see, People v Robinson,*159 AD2d 598).

The court’s denial of the defendant’s CPL 330.30 motion was proper *(see, People v Latella,*112 AD2d 321). Thompson, J. P., Copertino, Hart and Goldstein, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-1997
<CASH>                                           8,683
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  171,504
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (2,220)
<INVENTORY>                                     16,758
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               203,966
<PP&E>                                          34,397
<DEPRECIATION>                                  12,913
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 279,460
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          164,363
<BONDS>                                         40,816
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            44
<OTHER-SE>                                      74,237
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   279,460
<SALES>                                        211,958
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               211,958
<CGS>                                          188,246
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  188,246
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   430
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 987
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,165
<INCOME-TAX>                                       624
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                541
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       541
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.12
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.12
        

</TABLE>
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
ACCOMPANYING FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. Dollars
       
<S>                                            <C>
<NAME>                                         TCSI Corporaton
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         39,279
<SECURITIES>                                   22,153
<RECEIVABLES>                                  7,089
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               67,282
<PP&E>                                         9,687
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 85,352
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          10,114
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       2,228
<OTHER-SE>                                     73,010
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   85,352
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               11,005
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  10,911
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                860
<INCOME-TAX>                                   344
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            516
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   516
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0.02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.02
        


</TABLE>
No. 63875.

protests 58/4839, etc. (New York).

#### Sandoz Chemical Works, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of one coal-tar medicinal and two or more non-coal-tar products in medicinal dosage and are properly dutiable as other coal-tar medicináis, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
# Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas

August 18, 2021

No. 04

- 21

- 00246

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF R.R., A CHILD

From the 225th Judicial District Cou rt

, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2020PA00605 Honorable Peter Sakai , Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

This is an accelerated appeal from a final order terminating appellant ’ s parental rights which must be disposed of by this court within 180 days of the date the notice of appeal was filed. See T EX

. R. J UD

. A DMIN

. 6.2. A ppellant has filed a second motion requesting an extension of time to file the appellant’s brief . The motion is GRANTED. The appellant’s brief is due on or before August 23 , 202 1

.

G iven the time constraints governing the disposition of this appeal, no further requests for extensions of time will be granted absent extenuating circumstances

.

_________________________________ Irene Rios

, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 18th day of August, 2021

.

___________________________________ M ichael A. C ruz , Clerk of Court
Summary of Meeting with Sierra Club, Earth Justice, NPCA; August 17, 2015. Texas Regional Haze.

Please see attendee list placed in the docket.

Litigants in the Texas Regional Haze case met with Regional Administrator Ron Curry and others from Region 6. They presented a powerpoint presentation highlighting three issues: 1. Grid reliability; 2. Appropriateness of EPA’s action; 3. Consistency of EPA ’s action. They also discussed public health and economic benefits associated with improved air quality at Class I areas.