alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## IN THE COURT O F CRIMINA L A PPEA LS OF TEXA S NO. WR-56,883-12
IN RE LEROY HE NDERSON, Relator
ON AP P LICATION FOR AWRIT OF M ANDAM US CAUSE NOS. 763935-E AND 763936-F IN THE 263RD DIST RICT COURT F ROM HARRIS COUNTY
Per curiam . O R D E R
Relator has filed a motion for leave to file a writ of mandamus pursuant to th e o ri g inal jurisdiction of this C ourt. In it, he contends that he filed applica tions for writs of habeas cor pus in the 263rd District Court of Ha rr i s County , that more than 35 day s have elapse d, and that the applications have not y et bee n forwa rded to this Court. In these circ umstances, additional fac ts are neede d. Respondent, the District Clerk of Har ris County , is order ed to file a response , which may be made by submitt ing the rec ord(s) on such habea s corpus application(s) , submitt ing a copy of a t i m el y fi led order which desig nates issues to be investigated (see McCree v. Hampton , 824 S.W .2d 578, 579 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992)), or stating that-2-

Relator has not filed application(s) for a writ of habea s corpus in Har ris County
. Should the response include an or der de signating issues, proof of the date the district a

ttorney ’s office was ser

ved with the habea s application(s) shall also be submitt ed with the response . This application for leave to file
a writ of mandamus shall be held in abey ance until Respondent has submitt ed the appropr iate response . Such response shall be submitted within 30 day s of the date of this order.
Filed: August 6, 2014 Do not publish
#### Gondrand Transport Corp. *v.*United States

No. 7476.

Invoices dated London, England, February 22, 1945, etc.

Certified February 1945, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., April 27, 1945, etc.

Entry Nos. 729708; 735157; 707553.

(Decided December 12, 1947)

*Brooks & Brooks*for the plaintiff.

*Paul P. Rao,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Tilson, Judge:

The three appeals fisted above have been submitted for decision upon a stipulation to the effect that the issues in these appeals are the same as the issues involved in *United States*v. *Pitcairn,*C. A. D. 334, and the record therein has been admitted in evidence in this. case.

Counsel have further agreed that the values found by the appraiser, less the additions made by the importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases is equal to the price at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the usual wholesale quantities, in the ordinary course of trade and in the principal markets of the country from which exported for exportation to the United States, and that the foreign value of such or similar merchandise was not higher.

Accepting this stipulation as a statement of fact, and following the cited authority, I find and hold the proper dutiable export values of the merchandise covered by said appeals to be the values found by the appraiser, less any additions made by the importer on entry to meet advances in similar cases then pending on appeal. Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
No. 48100.

#### Protest 794472-G of Amerlux Steel Corp. (Seattle).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of *Wilbur-Ellis Co.*v. *United States*(26 C. C. P. A. 403, C. A. D. 47) and (9 Cust. Ct. 120, C. D. 673) the claim for free entry under paragraph 1604 was sustained.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
Financial Data Schedule for Form 10-Q for January 31, 1996
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000102198
<NAME> COMPETITIVE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1996
<CASH>                                         476,426
<SECURITIES>                                 4,612,255
<RECEIVABLES>                                  344,147
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,553,043
<PP&E>                                         532,690
<DEPRECIATION>                                 366,525
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,390,771
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,324,234
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     60,675
<COMMON>                                        58,911
<OTHER-SE>                                   6,201,842
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,390,771
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               708,487
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,263,866
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (290,433)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    15,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (305,433)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (305,433)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.05)
        

</TABLE>
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: Orion Healthcorp, Inc. and RMI Physicians Services Corp. v.

On Q Contact Center S.A.

Appel la te case number: 01

- 1 7

- 00 131

- CV

Trial court case number: 201 4

- 01 758

Trial court: 1 3 3rd District Court of Harris County

Appellant s

, Orion Healthcorp, Inc. and RMI Physicians Services Corp.

, ha ve filed

a n Unopposed Motion to Postpone Oral Argument Scheduled on January 24, 2018, at 1:30

p.m. because “[t]he parties have recently become engaged in settlement discussions, with

the hope [of] reach[ing] a full settlement.” We GRANT the motion to postpone the oral

argument set for January 24, 2018 at 1:30 p.m. and will reset the matter for oral argument

at a later date, if necessary.

No later than 60 days from the date of this order, the parties shall file a report

advising the court of the status of settlement discussions

.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Terry J e nnings

 A cting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: January 11 , 2018
# C_2016016EN.01003901.xml

| 18.1.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.1.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/39

---

Order of the General Court of 10 November 2015 — Compagnia Trasporti Pubblici and Others v Commission

(Case T-188/15) (1)

1

((State aid - Undertaking operating bus route networks in the Campania Region - Compensation for public service obligations paid by the Italian authorities following a judgment of the Consiglio di Stato - Commission declaring the measure incompatible with the internal market - Action brought by undertakings in a similar situation to that of the aid beneficiary))

(2016/C 016/48)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Compagnia Trasporti Pubblici SpA (Naples, Italy); Atap — Azienda Trasporti Automobilistici Pubblici delle Province di Biella e Vercelli SpA (Biella, Italy); Actv SpA (Venice, Italy); Ferrovie Appulo Lucane Srl (Bari, Italy); Asstra — Associazione Trasporti (Rome, Italy); and Associazione Nazionale Autotrasporto Viaggiatori (ANAV) (Rome) (represented by: M. Malena, lawyer)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Armati, G. Conte and P.J. Loewenthal, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision (EU) 2015/1075 of 19 January 2015 on State aid SA.35843 (2014/C) (ex 2012/NN) implemented by Italy — Additional public service compensation for Buonotourist (OJ 2015 L 179, p. 128).

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

| 2. | Compagnia Trasporti Pubblici SpA, Atap — Azienda Trasporti Automobilistici Pubblici delle Province di Biella e Vercelli SpA, Actv SpA, Ferrovie Appulo Lucane Srl, Asstra Associazione Trasporti, and Associazione Nazionale Autotrasporto Viaggiatori (ANAV), are ordered to bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Compagnia Trasporti Pubblici SpA, Atap — Azienda Trasporti Automobilistici Pubblici delle Province di Biella e Vercelli SpA, Actv SpA, Ferrovie Appulo Lucane Srl, Asstra Associazione Trasporti, and Associazione Nazionale Autotrasporto Viaggiatori (ANAV), are ordered to bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 198, 15.6.2015.

1

---
#### Richard ADAM; et al., Plaintiffs—Appellants, v. Greg NAKAMURA; et al., Defendants—Appellees.

No. 04-16075.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 9, 2005.*

Decided May 16, 2005.

Richard Adam, Gorham, NH, pro se.

Mariah Adam, Whitefield, NH, pro se.

Holly T. Shikada, Esq., AGHI-Office of the Hawaii Attorney General, Honolulu, HI, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before: PREGERSON, CANBY, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. *6R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

*6MEMORANDUM **

Richard Adam appeals pro se the district court’s judgment dismissing his civil rights action against a state court judge who presided over guardianship proceedings involving Adam’s wife’s property. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo dismissals for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, *Kougasian v. TMSL, Inc.,*359 F.3d 1136, 1139 (9th Cir.2004), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the *Rooker-Feldman*doctrine because Adam’s claims constitute a de facto appeal from the Hawaii state court judgment in the guardianship proceedings. *See Kougasian,*359 F.3d at 1139—10.

Because the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the action, it need not have reached the issues of judicial immunity and Adam’s purported representation of his minor daughter, and we will not consider these issues. *See Worldwide Church of God v. McNair,*805 F.2d 888, 893 n. 5 (9th Cir.1986).

Adam’s remaining contentions lack merit.

Adam’s motion for leave to enter audio tapes as exhibits to his opening brief is denied. Appellee Nakamura’s motion for leave to file an answering brief is granted. The Clerk shall file the answering brief lodged on October 25, 2004.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition, is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Order filed, April 13, 2021.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-20-00822-CV

____________

LETNER SURVIVORS TRUST, LLC, Appellant

V.

THE BERRY GROUP, LP, Appellee

On Appeal from the 333rd District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2015-70328

ORDER

The reporter’s record in this case was due February 1, 2021. See Tex. R. 

App. P. 35.1. The court has not received a request to extend time for filing the 

record. The record has not been filed with the court. Because the reporter’s record 

has not been filed timely, we issue the following order.

We order Michelle Miller, the official court reporter, to file the record in this 

appeal within 30 days of the date of this order. 

PER CURIAM

Panel Consists of Justices Jewell, Bourliot, and Hassan.
No. 39096.

#### Protests 941806-G, etc., of Ignaz Strauss *&*Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Sullivan, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of wood stands similar to those passed upon in *Kwong*v. *United States*(T. D. 49409). The claim at 33% percent under paragraph 412 was therefore sustained.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                            <C>                 <C>              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 3-MOS               6-MOS            YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>           DEC-31-1999        DEC-31-1999      DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                JUN-30-1999        JUN-30-1999      DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                               0          3,786,196        3,818,235
<SECURITIES>                         0                  0                0
<RECEIVABLES>                        0             15,000                0
<ALLOWANCES>                         0                  0                0
<INVENTORY>                          0                  0                0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                     0          1,580,592        1,490,998
<PP&E>                               0                  0                0
<DEPRECIATION>                       0                  0                0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                       0          5,381,788        5,309,233
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                0             12,096           21,551
<BONDS>                              0                  0                0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                0                  0                0
<PREFERRED>                          0                  0                0
<COMMON>                             0                  0                0
<OTHER-SE>                           0          5,369,692        5,287,682
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>         0          5,381,788        5,309,233
<SALES>                              0                  0                0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>               112,089            193,013                0
<CGS>                                0                  0                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                        0                  0                0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                80,915            111,003                0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                     0                  0                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                   0                  0                0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                 31,174             81,010                0
<INCOME-TAX>                         0                  0                0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                  0                  0                0
<DISCONTINUED>                       0                  0                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                      0                  0                0
<CHANGES>                            0                  0                0
<NET-INCOME>                    31,174             82,010                0
<EPS-BASIC>                        0                  0                0
<EPS-DILUTED>                        0                  0                0


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE FORM
10-KSB FOR THE YEAR ENDED MARCH 31, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                             293
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      454
<ALLOWANCES>                                        14
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  3279
<PP&E>                                             713
<DEPRECIATION>                                     190
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   32044
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             4423
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         52858
<OTHER-SE>                                     (33457)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     32044
<SALES>                                           5914
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  5914
<CGS>                                             2747
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     7911
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 20057
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 191
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (24992)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    (2842)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (22150)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (22150)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (1.06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.06)


</TABLE>
### Evaluation of streamflow records in Big Wood River basin, Idaho

By: Robert Paul Jones

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/cir192

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plate:  **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent, No. 68571-6-1 DIVISION ONE UNPUBLISHED OPINION 

### FILED: JUL " 8 2013 S ooo

*—• CDOGUY ADAM ROOK, Appellant. I oo 2?

o o 

### PerCuriam - Guy Rook appeals the order of restitution entered following his conviction for vehicular assault. He contends his counsel was ineffective for 

### notcontesting the restitution amount and challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting various items of restitution. The State concedes that the restitution amount included a double billing for an emergency room visitand that defense counsel was ineffective forfailing to contestthe restitution amount. We acceptthe State's concession. 

### With regard to Rook'ssufficiency arguments concerning other items of restitution, the State correctly points out that the superior court did not hold an 

### evidentiary hearing because defense counseldid not disputerestitution. In these circumstances, the State contends, and we agree, thatthe matter should be 

### remanded for a restitution hearing atwhich Rook is represented by new counsel and the State has an opportunity to presentevidence on any disputed matters. See State v. Saunders, 120 Wn.App. 800, 825, 86 P.3d 232 (2004) (where 

### counsel was ineffective at sentencing forfailing to argue same criminal conduct, court remanded for resentencing with new counsel); State v. Mendoza, 165 

### Wn.2d913, 930, 205 P.3d 113 (2009) (when there was no objection to criminal

### history at sentencing and history was challenged on appeal, proper remedy was to remand forevidentiary hearing at which State could present evidence). 

### We acceptthe concession of error and remand forproceedings consistent with this opinion. For the court: 

# 1 

# 4~/<?./
EXHIBIT 11.2


                     GEOWASTE INCORPORATED AND SUBSIDIARIES

                        COMPUTATION OF NET LOSS PER SHARE

                  FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1997




<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                                                                    Fully
                                                                                   PRIMARY                         DILUTED
Weighted Average Common Shares
<S>                                                                                <C>                             <C>       
outstanding.............................................................           21,233,378                      21,233,378

Convertible debt.........................................................                   -                               -

Stock options and warrants outstanding...................................          -                                        -
                                                                          -------------------

Weighted average shares of common shares outstanding.....................          21,233,378                      21,233,378
                                                                                 ============                    ============

Net income ..............................................................       $   (247,317)                   $   (247,317)
                                                                                =============                   =============

Earnings per share.......................................................   $         (0.01)                $         (0.01)
                                                                            =================               ================
</TABLE>
#### Lester Wallis *vs.*William Sparks.

*Error to Muscatine.*

Writ of error will only lie where there has been a final judgment in the Court below.

Where judgment has been arrested, if the plaintiff feels thereby aggrieved, and wishes to test the decision of the court thereon, he may move for judgement against himself, which will be ordered, as a matter of course, upon which he may bring his writ of error.

In this case the verdict in the court below was for the plaintiff, Wallis, who was also the plaintiff below. Judgment, however, was never rendered thereon, having been arrested by the defendant. The plaintiff then brought his writ of error in order to set aside the arrest.

Whicker, for defendant,

moved to dismiss the writ, because there was no final judgment in the court below.

By the Court,

Mason, Chief Justice.

The motion in this case must be sustained. Strictly speaking, perhaps the motion should have been to quash the writ of error, but the difference is not very material.

Writs of error will only lie where there has been a final judgment in the court below- This in general only embraces those decisions and determinations of the court which would be a bar to another action for the same cause. The arrest of judgement is in no case such a bar. *21The parties must wait "till there is a final judgment of some kind, when the whole proceedings below may be brought before the appellate court by a writ of error.

The plaintiff in this case might have moved for judgment against himself in the District Court which would have been ordered as a matter of course, (Fish *vs.*Featherwax, 2 Johnson’s cases, 215, and Horne *vs.*Barney, 19 Johnson’s Reports, 247,) or he might have retraced his steps and accommodated his proceedings, to suit the views of the court until he had obtained final judgment. After which, in either case, if he had felt himself aggrieved, he might have brought the whole matter here for review.