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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FORM 10-K AN
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           1,534
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,488
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      3,381
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 6,859
<PP&E>                                           2,541
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,264
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   7,189
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,596
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,909
<OTHER-SE>                                       3,046
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     7,189
<SALES>                                          8,633
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 8,653
<CGS>                                            5,273
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    6,659
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 119
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,994
<INCOME-TAX>                                       663
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,331
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,331
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .70
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .68


</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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PRAKASH NARAYAN, et al.,

Plaintiffs, No. CIV S 04-1689 LKK GGH PS

vs.

CITY OF SACRAMENTO, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

On April 25, 2005, plaintiff Narayan filed another request for appointment of

counsel. The court has already referred the case to the Bradshaw panel without success, and

granted plaintiff Narayan additional time to retain counsel. This action, filed August 17, 2004,

cannot be delayed further. Therefore, plaintiff’s request will be denied.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that plaintiffs’ April 25, 2005 request for

appointment of counsel is denied.

DATED: 5/2/05

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

 GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:076

Narayanden.aty.wpd

Case 2:04-cv-01689-LKK -GGH Document 12 Filed 05/03/05 Page 1 of 1
No. 52240.

Suit 4563.

#### United States *v.*Albers Bros. Milling Co. et al.

C. D. 1027 reversed January 27, 1948. C. A. D. 380.
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

27

28 The parties also made other motion in limine filings outside 1

the format prescribed in the Final Pretrial Order.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KEITH STAFFORD, an individual, )

) 2:04-cv-0047-GEB-EFB

Plaintiff, )

) ORDER

v. )

)

UNITED TREASURES, INC., a ) 

Washington corporation, )

)

Defendant. )

)

On June 28, 2005, the parties filed a “Stipulation re:

Evidentiary Disagreements” (“Stipulation”). Since the parties 1

reached agreements in the Stipulation concerning Defendant’s Motions

No. 1, No. 3 and No. 4, no decision is required on these motions. The

parties’ assistance is required to ensure that witnesses are excluded

as they have stipulated.

The remaining motions in limine will not be decided. When

the Court is uncertain about issuance of a definitive ruling on 

/////

/////

Case 2:04-cv-00047-GEB-EFB Document 153 Filed 09/28/06 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

27

28

2

admission or exclusion of particular evidence, a decision should not

issue.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 28, 2006

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-00047-GEB-EFB Document 153 Filed 09/28/06 Page 2 of 2
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 438 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 438

   To amend the Natural Gas Act to provide for expanded natural gas 
                                exports.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           February 15, 2023

   Mr. Cruz (for himself, Mrs. Capito, Mr. Cramer, and Mr. Kennedy) 
introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 
               Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend the Natural Gas Act to provide for expanded natural gas 
                                exports.

    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 ``Natural Gas Export Expansion Act''.

SEC. 2. NATURAL GAS EXPORTS.

    (a) Finding.--Congress finds that expanding natural gas exports 
will lead to increased investment and development of domestic supplies 
of natural gas that will contribute to job growth and economic 
development.
    (b) Natural Gas Exports.--Section 3(c) of the Natural Gas Act (15 
U.S.C. 717b(c)) is amended--
            (1) by inserting ``or any other nation not excluded by this 
        section'' after ``trade in natural gas'';
            (2) by striking ``(c) For purposes'' and inserting the 
        following:
    ``(c) Expedited Application and Approval Process.--
            ``(1) In general.--For purposes''; and
            (3) by adding at the end the following:
            ``(2) Exclusions.--
                    ``(A) In general.--Any nation subject to sanctions 
                or trade restrictions imposed by the United States is 
                excluded from expedited approval under paragraph (1).
                    ``(B) Designation by president or congress.--The 
                President or Congress may designate nations that may be 
                excluded from expedited approval under paragraph (1) 
                for reasons of national security.
            ``(3) Order not required.--No order is required under 
        subsection (a) to authorize the export or import of any natural 
        gas to or from Canada or Mexico.''.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 31.B
**CERTIFICATION**
I, Gene T. Waguespack, certify that:
1. I havereviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of El Paso Exploration& Production Company;
2. Based on my knowledge, this Report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this Report;
3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this Report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisReport;
4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining 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 disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure thatmaterial information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this Report is being prepared;
(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this Report our conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisReport based on such evaluation; and
(c) Disclosed in this Report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial 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 hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditorsand the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent functions):
(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and
(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.
Date: May 5, 2006          /s/ Gene T. Waguespack    Gene T. Waguespack    Senior Vice President, Chief FinancialOfficer,Treasurer and Controller
[Proposed] Order of Dismissal 1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

JORDAN C. KAHN (Cal. Bar No. 197133) 

TAHOE REGIONAL PLANNING AGENCY 

P.O. Box 5310 

Stateline, Nevada 89449 

Telephone: (775) 588-4547 

Facsimile: (775) 588-4527 

Attorneys for Plaintiff, 

TAHOE REGIONAL PLANNING AGENCY 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

TAHOE REGIONAL PLANNING AGENCY, 

 Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

BRIAN DEVORE, DEVORE 

CONSTRUCTION INC., DEVORE 

EXCAVATION & SNOW REMOVAL, 

 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.CIV.S-04-1614 WBS KJM 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

On August 5, 2005, plaintiff Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (“TRPA”) filed a Notice 

of Settlement informing the Court that it had resolved the above-captioned matter with all 

remaining defendants: Bryan Devore, Devore Construction, Inc., and Devore Excavation & 

Snow Removal (collectively “Devore”). In accordance with the Settlement Agreement (attached 

to the Notice of Settlement), TRPA hereby submits this [Proposed] Order of Dismissal. 

/ / / 

/ / / 

Case 2:04-cv-01614-WBS -KJM Document 30 Filed 08/16/05 Page 1 of 3
[Proposed] Order of Dismissal 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

DATED: August 15, 2005. 

 Respectfully submitted, 

 By: _____/s/ -- Jordan Kahn_______________________ 

 JORDAN C. KAHN 

 TAHOE REGIONAL PLANNING AGENCY 

 P.O. Box 5310 

 Stateline, Nevada 89449 

 Telephone: (775) 588-4547 

 Facsimile: (775) 588-4527 

 

 Attorneys for Plaintiff, 

 Tahoe Regional Planning Agency 

[PROPOSED ORDER] 

Good cause being shown, the above-captioned matter is hereby dismissed. IT IS SO 

ORDERED. 

Date: August 15, 2005

Case 2:04-cv-01614-WBS -KJM Document 30 Filed 08/16/05 Page 2 of 3
[Proposed] Order of Dismissal 

3

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

RE: TRPA V. BRYAN DEVORE, DEVORE CONSTRUCTION INC., and DEVORE 

EXCAVATION & SNOW REMOVAL 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

CASE NO. CIV.S-04-1614 WBS KJM 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 

Pursuant to FRCP 5(b), I certify that I am over 18 years of age and am not a party to 

the above-entitled action. I am an employee of the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, and my 

business address is P.O. Box 5310, Stateline, Nevada 89449. On the 15th day of August, 2005, I 

caused to be sent U.S. mail a true and correct copy of [PROPOSED] ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

addressed to the following parties: 

Bryan Devore 

DeVore Construction 

Dba: Sticks & Stones 

P.O. Box 5582 

Tahoe City, CA 96145-5582 

George Forman, Esq. 

Forman & Prochaska 

4340 Redwood Highway, Suite F228 

San Rafael, CA 94903 

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed at 

Stateline, Nevada, on August 15, 2005. 

 

 _/s/ -- Judy Nikkel_____________________ 

 Judy Nikkel 

Tahoe Regional Planning Agency 

 

Case 2:04-cv-01614-WBS -KJM Document 30 Filed 08/16/05 Page 3 of 3
# Cover Letter

# Table 1

# Table 2

# Table 3

# Table 4
Exhibit 23, Form 10-K
Kansas City Life Insurance Company

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

The Board of Directors

Kansas City Life Insurance Company:

We consent to the use of our reports dated February 27, 2006, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Kansas City Life Insurance Company as of December 31, 2005 and 2004, and the related consolidated statements of income, stockholders equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2005, and financial statement schedules I-V, managements assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2005, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2005, included herein.





/s/KPMG LLP

KPMG LLP

Kansas City, MO

February 27, 2006
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 45 (Thursday, March 8, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 10558]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-4062]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-59,136; TA-W-59,136B]


Cranston Print Works Company, Design and Engraving Division, 
Cranston, RI; Cranston Print Works Company, Corporate Headquarters, 
Cranston, RI; Amended Certification Regarding Eligibility To Apply for 
Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment 
Assistance

    In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 
2273), and Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974 (26 U.S.C. 2813), as 
amended, the Department of Labor issued a Certification Regarding 
Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative 
Trade Adjustment Assistance on April 21, 2006, applicable to workers of 
Cranston Print Works Company, Design and Engraving Division, Cranston, 
Rhode Island. The notice was published in the Federal Register on May 
10, 2006 (71 FR 27291).
    At the request of the company, the Department reviewed the 
certification for workers of the subject firm. The workers are engaged 
in the production of artwork designs used by the subject firm to 
engrave rotary screens for printing textile fabrics.
    The company reports that worker separations occurred at the 
Corporate Headquarters facility of the subject firm where the workers 
provide administrative support functions for the subject firm's 
production plant located in Cranston, Rhode Island.
    Based on these findings, the Department is amending the 
certification to include workers of the Cranston Print Works Company, 
Corporate Headquarters, Cranston, Rhode Island.
    The intent of the Department's certification is to include all 
workers of Cranston Print Works Company, Design and Engraving Division 
who were adversely affected by increased company imports. The amended 
notice applicable to TA-W-59,136 is hereby issued as follows:

    All workers of Cranston Print Works Company, Design and 
Engraving Division, Cranston, Rhode Island (TA-W-59,136) and 
Cranston Print Works Company, Corporate Headquarters, Cranston, 
Rhode Island (TA-W-59,136B), who became totally or partially 
separated from employment on or after March 6, 2005, through April 
21, 2008, are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under 
Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, and are also eligible to apply 
for alternative trade adjustment assistance under Section 246 of the 
Trade Act of 1974.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 23rd day of February 2007.
Richard Church,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
 [FR Doc. E7-4062 Filed 3-7-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
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

United States District Court

Eastern District of California 

Kenneth Dean Dawson,

Plaintiff, No. Civ. S 04-1793 GEB PAN P

vs. Order

U.S. Government,

Defendant.

-oOoJuly 5, 2005, plaintiff requested an extension of time to

file an amended complaint in compliance with the court’s April 8,

2005, order. Good cause appearing, plaintiff’s request is

granted and time is extended until 30 days from the date this

order is signed.

So ordered.

Dated: July 7, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:04-cv-01793-GEB-PAN Document 15 Filed 07/12/05 Page 1 of 1
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-7601

MICHAEL E. GARNER,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

HAROLD CLARKE, Director,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at 

Roanoke. Michael F. Urbanski, Chief District Judge. (7:18-cv-00560-MFU-RSB)

Submitted: May 20, 2020 Decided: June 10, 2020

Before FLOYD, THACKER, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael E. Garner, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Michael E. Garner seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2254 (2018) petition challenging his prison disciplinary conviction and the calculation of 

his good time credits. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1291 (2018), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2018); 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). 

“Ordinarily, a district court order is not final until it has resolved all claims as to all parties.” 

Porter v. Zook, 803 F.3d 694, 696 (4th Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks omitted). 

Our review of the record reveals that the district court did not adjudicate all of 

Garner’s claims. Specifically, the court did not adjudicate Garner’s claim that his due 

process rights were violated during the prison disciplinary hearing and the administrative 

appeals process because he was denied witnesses and documentary evidence. 

Accordingly, we conclude that the order Garner seeks to appeal is neither a final 

order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. We therefore grant Garner leave 

to proceed in forma pauperis, dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, and remand to the 

district court for consideration of the unresolved claim. Id. at 699. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED AND REMANDED
No. 49155.

#### Petition 6367-R of Fortmann, Doscher & Co., Inc. (New York).

*248Opinion by

Keefe, J.

At the trial the evidence disclosed that the shipper made an ..error, in the consular invoice regarding the cost of freight. Upon discovery of same, steps were taken to correct the error. From the record the court was of the opinion that the entry at the invoice prices was made in good faith. The petition -was therefore granted.
Before the Third Division,

April 21, 1954

No. 58021.

petition 7128-R (New Orleans)

#### Charles A. Clark *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

At the trial, it was disclosed that there was an honest difference of opinion between the importer and the appraiser as to the proper value of the toys and that the importer supplied the appraiser with all available information in his possession. The customs authorities having rendered a report favorable to the petitioner, and upon the record presented, it was held that there was no intent to defraud the revenue of the United States or to conceal or misrepresent the facts of the case or to deceive the appraiser as to the value of the merchandise. The petition was therefore granted.
## In t he

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06

- 23

- 00060

- CR

GREGORY LYNN GRIMES , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 114th District Court

Smith County, Texas

Trial Court No. 114

- 0474

- 19

Before Stevens , C.J., van Cleef and Rambin , JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Stevens2 

### ME MORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Gregory Lynn Grimes has filed a motion to dismiss this appeal. 1 The motion

was signed by both Grimes and his appellate counsel in compliance with Rule 42.2(a) of the

Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.2(a). As authorized by Rule

42.2(a), we grant the motion. See id.

Ac cordingly, we dismiss this appeal.

Scott E. Stevens

Chief Justice

Date Submitted: Ju ne 19, 2023

Date Decided: June 20, 2023

Do Not Publish

1 Originally appealed to the Twelfth Court of Appeals, this case was transferred to this Court by the Texas Supreme

Court pursuant to its docket equalization efforts. See T EX

. G OV ’ T C ODE A NN

. § 73.001

.
Before Judge Watson,

January 16, 1968

No. R68/10.

reappraisements R66/23435 and R66/19679 (New York).

No. R68/11.

reappraisements R67/1633, R67/5474, and R67/8535 (New York).

#### Dana Parfumes Corp. *v.*United States, Dana Parfumes Corp. *v.*United States,

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues are similar in all material respects to those involved in *Gehrig Hoban & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(57 Cust. Ct. 727, A.R.D. 210), the court found and held that cost of production, as that value is defined in section 402 (f), Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, is the proper basis for the determination of the value of the “Canoe” cologne here in question and that such values are as stated in schedule “B,” said schedule “B” being attached to and made a part of the decision, plus the pro rata share of the cost of packing as indicated on the invoices.
# C_2006311EN.01005301.xml

| 19.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 311/53 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 311/53

---

Commission notice to producers of maize

(2006/C 311/11)

The Commission wishes to draw the attention of Community producers of maize to the proposal for a Council Regulation which it adopted on 15 December 2006, designed to amend Council Regulation (EC) No 1784/2003 of 29 September 2003 on the common organisation of the market in cereals (1). Specifically, this proposal provides for the removal of maize from the intervention arrangements with effect from the 2007/08 marketing year.

1

---

(1)  COM (2006) 755.

1

---