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


<ARTICLE>      5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                        3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                             258,254
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      145,291
<ALLOWANCES>                                         5,000
<INVENTORY>                                        426,360
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   900,835
<PP&E>                                              25,982
<DEPRECIATION>                                       7,468
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   1,087,674
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              171,482
<BONDS>                                            203,000
<COMMON>                                               403
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<OTHER-SE>                                               0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     1,087,674
<SALES>                                            366,750
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   366,750
<CGS>                                              209,879
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      209,879
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   167,726
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   1,057
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (11,912)
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                      0
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (11,912)
<EPS-BASIC>                                       (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       (0.01)



</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 7810 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 7810

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 3519 East Walnut Street in Pearland, Texas, as the ``Tom Reid Post 
                           Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 29, 2020

  Mr. Olson (for himself, Mr. Gohmert, Mr. Crenshaw, Mr. Taylor, Mr. 
 Gooden, Mr. Wright, Mrs. Fletcher, Mr. Brady, Mr. Green of Texas, Mr. 
 McCaul, Mr. Conaway, Ms. Granger, Mr. Thornberry, Mr. Weber of Texas, 
 Mr. Gonzalez of Texas, Ms. Escobar, Mr. Flores, Ms. Jackson Lee, Mr. 
    Arrington, Mr. Castro of Texas, Mr. Roy, Mr. Hurd of Texas, Mr. 
Marchant, Mr. Williams, Mr. Burgess, Mr. Cloud, Mr. Cuellar, Ms. Garcia 
 of Texas, Ms. Johnson of Texas, Mr. Carter of Texas, Mr. Allred, Mr. 
Veasey, Mr. Vela, Mr. Doggett, and Mr. Babin) introduced the following 
   bill; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 3519 East Walnut Street in Pearland, Texas, as the ``Tom Reid Post 
                           Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. TILDEN VETERANS POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 3519 East Walnut Street in Pearland, Texas, shall be known 
and designated as the ``Tom Reid Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Tom Reid 
Post Office Building''.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 7895 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 7895

To amend title 5, United States Code, to clarify the nature of judicial 
     review of agency interpretations of statutory and regulatory 
                              provisions.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 31, 2020

Mr. Armstrong (for himself, Mr. Johnson of Louisiana, Mr. Griffith, Mr. 
Burgess, Mr. Rouzer, Mr. Cline, Mr. Loudermilk, Mr. Reschenthaler, Mr. 
Gaetz, Mr. Lamborn, Mr. Duncan, Mr. Palmer, Mr. Collins of Georgia, Mr. 
   Gallagher, Mr. Chabot, Mr. Walker, Mr. Byrne, Mr. David P. Roe of 
Tennessee, Mr. Biggs, Mr. Yoho, and Mr. Buck) introduced the following 
       bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 5, United States Code, to clarify the nature of judicial 
     review of agency interpretations of statutory and regulatory 
                              provisions.

    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 ``Separation of Powers Restoration Act 
of 2020''.

SEC. 2. JUDICIAL REVIEW OF STATUTORY AND REGULATORY INTERPRETATIONS.

    Section 706 of title 5, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) by striking ``To the extent necessary'' and inserting 
        ``(a) To the extent necessary'';
            (2) by striking ``decide all relevant questions of law, 
        interpret constitutional and statutory provisions, and'';
            (3) by inserting after ``of the terms of an agency action'' 
        the following ``and decide de novo all relevant questions of 
        law, including the interpretation of constitutional and 
        statutory provisions, and rules made by agencies. 
        Notwithstanding any other provision of law, this subsection 
        shall apply in any action for judicial review of agency action 
        authorized under any provision of law. No law may exempt any 
        such civil action from the application of this section except 
        by specific reference to this section''; and
            (4) by striking ``The reviewing court shall--'' and 
        inserting the following:
    ``(b) The reviewing court shall--''.
                                 <all>
```
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Terry Joseph GREGOIRE v. Ross MAGGIO, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary.

No. 60122.

Supreme Court of Louisiana

Sept. 16, 1977.

In re: Terry Joseph Gregoire, applying for writ of habeas corpus, alternatively for certiorari, prohibition.

Writ granted. It is ordered that the trial judge conduct an evidentiary hearing on the allegations that relator was denied an appeal because of an alleged threat and that his counsel was ineffective.

DIXON, J., is of the opinion that an out-of-time appeal should be granted.
Motion Granted; Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed March 

26, 2013.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-13-00071-CV

LIZZIE J. LOVALL, INDIVIDUALLY; KEITH L. SHAW; 

INDIVIDUALLY: KENNETH L. YOUNG; INDIVIDUALLY; KIM L. 

SHAW, INDIVIDUALLY, Appellants

V.

HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS, INDIVIDUALLY, OFFICIALLY AND 

VICARIOUSLY; MAY WALKER, CONSTABLE, PRECINCT 7, 

INDIVIDUALLY; RUTH MCDUGLE, INDIVIDUALLY; DARLA TURNER, 

INDIVIDUALLY; JOHN K. GEORGE, OFFICIALLY, INDIVIDUALLY; 

GOW-MING CHAO, INDIVIDUALLY; ET AL, Appellees

On Appeal from the 190th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2011-23410

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

This is an attempted appeal from an order signed December 27, 2012. 

Appellants Lizzie Lovall, Keith L. Shaw, Kenneth L. Young, and Kim L. Shaw 
2

filed suit against Harris County, Texas, May Walker, Ruth McDugle, Darla Turner, 

John K. George, Gow-Ming Chao, and Chia-Li Chao. On August 21, 2012, the 

trial court dismissed appellants’ case against all parties. On October 23, 2012, the 

trial court granted appellants’ motion to vacate the dismissal except as to GowMing Chao and Chia-Li Chao. Appellants filed a motion to reinstate their cases 

against Gow-Ming Chao and Chia-Li Chao, which was denied on December 27, 

2012. On November 28, 2012, the trial court granted a motion for summary 

judgment filed by Harris County, May Walker, Darla Turner, and Ruth McDugle. 

On January 22, 2013, appellants filed a notice of appeal seeking to appeal “the 

Court’s Dismissal Order.” After the partial grant of the motion to vacate, and the 

summary judgment, there remain outstanding causes of action against John K. 

George. 

Generally, appeals may be taken only from final judgments. Lehmann v. 

Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). Interlocutory orders may be 

appealed only if permitted by statute. Bally Total Fitness Corp. v. Jackson, 53 

S.W.3d 352, 352 (Tex. 2001); Jack B. Anglin Co., Inc. v. Tipps, 842 S.W.2d 266, 

272 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). 

On February 18, 2013, appellees filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for 

want of jurisdiction because causes of action remain against defendant John K. 

George. The record supports appellees’ motion.

Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Frost, Brown, and Busby.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FORM THE DECEMBER
31, 1997 FORM 10-Q FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES CORPORATION OF THE MIDWEST AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          17,340
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           5,048
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 9,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     97,860
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          33,519
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            33,723
<LOANS>                                        325,981
<ALLOWANCE>                                      6,901
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 497,453
<DEPOSITS>                                     413,877
<SHORT-TERM>                                    33,584
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              7,135
<LONG-TERM>                                     10,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      5,000
<COMMON>                                           170
<OTHER-SE>                                      27,687
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 497,453
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 22,583
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                5,796
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   598
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                28,977
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              13,701
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              15,378
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           13,599
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    2,752
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 135
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  8,327
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,936
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       4,018
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,018
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    19.73
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    13.14
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.15
<LOANS-NON>                                          0
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 5,442
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    1,293
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                6,901
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             6,901
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

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


<ARTICLE>                                           7
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FORM 10-Q FOR
THE SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED INITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCES
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1999
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                           77,820
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                               0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                                 0
<EQUITIES>                                          4
<MORTGAGE>                                          0
<REAL-ESTATE>                                       0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                                106,797
<CASH>                                          2,198
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                             14,949
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                         51,836
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                296,503
<POLICY-LOSSES>                                60,913
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                                14
<POLICY-OTHER>                                 44,681
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                           4,282
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                43,035
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                        1,169
<OTHER-SE>                                    114,860
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  296,503
<PREMIUMS>                                     26,198
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                             5,187
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                                  0
<OTHER-INCOME>                                  1,026
<BENEFITS>                                     11,490
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                     3,737
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                            8,450
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 7,499
<INCOME-TAX>                                      954
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             6,545
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                    6,545
<EPS-BASIC>                                      1.29
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    1.26
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                      0
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                                 0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                   0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                                  0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                    0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                     0
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                             0




</TABLE>
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOSEPH B. MATTHEWS,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

LAHEY, Nurse; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 13-15463

D.C. No. 2:09-cv-02415-GEBKJN

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Garland E. Burrell, Jr., District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 18, 2014** 

Before: ALARCÓN, O’SCANNLAIN, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.

Joseph B. Matthews, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the

district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging

deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28

U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th

FILED

FEB 28 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Cir. 2004), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Matthews

failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants were

deliberately indifferent to his right clavicle fracture. See id. at 1057-60 (a prison

official acts with deliberate indifference only if he or she knows of and disregards

an excessive risk to a prisoner’s health and safety; negligence and a mere

difference in medical opinion are insufficient); see also Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d

1202, 1207 (9th Cir. 2011) (discussing the requirements for establishing

supervisory liability). 

Matthews’ contention that he did not receive proper notice of the

requirements to oppose summary judgment is unpersuasive. 

AFFIRMED.

2 13-15463
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 776 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.776

                     One Hundred Sixteenth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE FIRST SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Thursday,
           the third day of January, two thousand and nineteen

                                 An Act

 
  To amend the Public Health Service Act to reauthorize the Emergency 
                 Medical Services for Children program.

    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 ``Emergency Medical Services for 
Children Program Reauthorization Act of 2019''.
SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION OF THE EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES FOR CHILDREN 
PROGRAM.
    Section 1910(d) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300w-
9(d)) is amended--
        (1) by striking ``2014, and'' and inserting ``2014,''; and
        (2) by inserting before the period the following: ``, and 
    $22,334,000 for each of fiscal years 2020 through 2024''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
Docket Number: FAA-2012-0493

 Contacts. With whom outside the FAA has this proposal been discussed?

Organization Person Contacted Date Response 

National Business Aircraft Association Eli Cotti 8/31/11

Regional Airline Association 8/31/11

Aircraft Owners & Pilots Association Robert Hackman 8/31/11

ATA Joe White 8/31/11
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-6846 

IN RE: WALTER JACOB DAVIS,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

(CR-94-73; CA-01-59-5-F)

Submitted: September 16, 2004 Decided: September 28, 2004

Before LUTTIG, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Walter Jacob Davis, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Walter Jacob Davis petitions for writ of mandamus,

alleging the district court has unduly delayed in acting upon his

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion. Although we find that mandamus

relief is not warranted, because the delay is not unreasonable, we

deny the mandamus petition without prejudice to the filing of

another mandamus petition if the district court does not act

expeditiously. We grant Davis’ motion to proceed in forma

pauperis. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
^
                          	 Diamond Hill
                                 ------------
                                 Investments


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
					Investor Contact:
					James F. Laird-Chief Financial Officer
					614-255-3353 (jlaird@diamond-hill.com)

DIAMOND HILL INVESTMENT GROUP, INC.
ANNOUNCES SPECIAL DIVIDEND

	Columbus, Ohio - December 1, 2011 - Diamond Hill Investment Group, Inc.
(NASDAQ:DHIL) today announced that its board of directors has approved a $5.00
per share cash dividend to shareholders of record on December 12, 2011 payable
December 19, 2011.  The Company expects the dividend will be characterized as
qualified dividend income and that no portion of the dividend will represent
a return of capital.


About Diamond Hill:
Diamond Hill is an independent investment management firm with significant
employee ownership and $8.4 billion in assets under management as of October
31, 2011.  The firm provides investment management services to institutions
and individuals through mutual funds, institutional separate accounts, and
private investment funds.  Diamond Hill's entire investment team shares the
same intrinsic value investment philosophy focused on absolute returns, and
the firm's interests are firmly aligned with its clients through significant
investment in its strategies.  For more information on Diamond Hill, visit
www.diamond-hill.com.


					###

            325 John H. McConnell Blvd, Suite 200, Columbus, Ohio 43215
                         614-255-3333  fax 614-255-3363
#### White, Appellant, *v.*Philadelphia Rapid Transit Company.

*Negligence*— Street *railways*— Passengers—Car *in motion*— Case *for jury.*

In an action against a street railway company to recover damages for personal injuries the case is for the jury where the evidence is conflicting as to whether the plaintiff was thrown by the starting of a car, as she was in the act of alighting, or whether she stepped from the car when it was in motion.

Argued Jan. 19, 1911.

Appeal, No. 196, Jan. T., 1910, by plaintiffs, from judgment of C. P. No. 2, Phila. Co., Nov. T., 1907, No. 4,458, on verdict for defendant in case of William P. White and Annie McKean White, his wife, v. *94Philadelphia Rapid Transit Company.

March 20, 1911.

Before Fell, C. J., Mestrezat, Potter, Stewart and Moschzisker, JJ.

Affirmed.

Trespass to recover damages for personal injuries. Before Sulzberger, J.

At the trial the evidence was conflicting as to whether plaintiff was thrown by the starting of a car as she was alighting, or whether she stepped from a car when it was in motion.

Verdict for defendant and judgment thereon.

*Errors assigned*were various portions of the charge.

*Leo MacFarland,*for appellants.

*Thomas Learning,*with him *D. J. Shern,*for appellee.

Per Curiam,

The right to a recovery in this case, depended on whether the plaintiff, who was injured, was thrown by the starting of a car, as she was in the act of alighting, or whether she stepped from the car when it was in motion. This was a question of fact for the jury, and it was properly submitted.

The judgment is affirmed.