alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES


SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


Washington, D.C. 20549





FORM 8-K





CURRENT REPORT


PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE


SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934





(Date of report)October 14, 2015(Date of earliest event reported)October 13, 2015





ONEOK PARTNERS, L.P.


(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)





Delaware1-1220293-1120873(State or other jurisdiction(Commission(IRS Employerof incorporation)File Number)Identification No.)





100 West Fifth Street; Tulsa, OK


(Address of principal executive offices)





74103


(Zip code)





(918) 588-7000


(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code)





Not Applicable


(Former name or former address, if changed since last report)





Check the appropriate box below if the Form 8-K filing is intended to simultaneously satisfy the filing obligation of the registrant under any of the following provisions:





[] Written communication pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17 CFR 230.425)





[] Soliciting material pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14a-12)





[] Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14d-2(b))





[] Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.13e-4(c))







---




Item 7.01Regulation FD DisclosureOn October 13, 2015, ONEOK, Inc. (ONEOK) and ONEOK Partners, L.P. (ONEOK Partners) announced they will release their third-quarter 2015 earnings after the market closes on November 3, 2015, and will hold a joint conference call and live webcast at 11 a.m. Eastern Standard Time (10 a.m. Central Standard Time) on November 4, 2015.  The call will also be carried live on the ONEOK and ONEOK Partners websites.  A copy of the news release is attached as Exhibit 99.1 and is incorporated herein by reference.The information disclosed in this Item 7.01, including Exhibit 99.1 hereto, is being furnished and shall not be deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act), or otherwise subject to the liabilities under that section, nor shall it be deemed incorporated by reference in any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act except as expressly set forth by specific reference in such filing.Item 9.01Financial Statements and Exhibits(d)ExhibitsExhibitNumberDescription99.1News release issued by ONEOK, Inc. and ONEOK Partners, L.P. dated October 13, 2015.





2


---




SIGNATURE





Pursuant to the requirements of the Exchange Act, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, hereunto duly authorized.





ONEOK Partners, L.P.By:  ONEOK Partners GP, L.L.C.,General PartnerDate:October 14, 2015By:/s/ Derek S. ReinersDerek S. ReinersSenior Vice President,Chief Financial Officer andTreasurer





3


---




EXHIBIT INDEX








ExhibitNumberDescription99.1News release issued by ONEOK, Inc. and ONEOK Partners, L.P. dated October 13, 2015.








4
Opinion issued July 22, 2021

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-20-00730-CV

———————————

IN RE FELEXSON KASEGWE AND LANDSTAR RANGER, INC., Relators

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relators, Felexson Kasegwe and Landstar Ranger, Inc., have filed an 

unopposed motion to dismiss this original proceeding for writ of mandamus.1

Relators aver that their mandamus petition is moot because the trial court recently 

1 The underlying case is Enrique Rodriguez v. Felexson Kasegwe, Noah Allen, 

Landstar, Inc., and VM Readymix, LLC, cause number 2019-56215, pending in the 

157th District Court of Harris County, Texas, the Honorable Tanya Garrison 

presiding.
2

signed an order granting reconsideration and vacating the challenged order. 

Accordingly, we grant the motion and dismiss this original proceeding.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Landau and Countiss.
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 18-12645

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 0:17-cv-60597-WPD

RAYMOND A. HANNA EL, 

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

 versus

STATE OF FLORIDA, 

BROWARD COUNTY MUNICIPALITIES, 

CITY OF LAUDERHILL, 

CARLOS REBELLO, 

MICHAEL MAUER, et al.,

 Defendants-Appellees.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

________________________

(June 18, 2019)

Case: 18-12645 Date Filed: 06/18/2019 Page: 1 of 2 
2

Before ED CARNES, Chief Judge, BRANCH, and FAY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Raymond Hanna El, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this 

42 U.S.C.§ 1983 suit, appeals the district court’s denial of his “Writ to Amend the 

Record,” which the district court construed as a motion to amend. We review only 

for an abuse of discretion a district court’s denial of a motion to amend. Stevens v. 

Gay, 864 F.2d 113, 116 (11th Cir. 1989). The district court denied Hanna El’s

motion to amend because the case was closed — and had been for over a year by 

the time Hanna El filed his motion. That was not an abuse of discretion. See id.

(“Undue delay or failure properly to amend a complaint after repeated opportunity 

to do so . . . constitutes grounds to deny a motion to amend.”).

Hanna El also appeals the denial of his “Writ of Error,” which the district 

court construed as a motion for reconsideration. We review only for abuse of 

discretion the denial of a motion for reconsideration. Richardson v. Johnson, 598 

F.3d 734, 740 (11th Cir. 2010) (per curiam). Hanna El’s motion appears to have 

been an effort to relitigate the district court’s prior rulings. Because “[a] motion 

for reconsideration cannot be used to relitigate old matters,” id. (quotation marks 

omitted), the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Hanna El’s 

motion.

AFFIRMED.

Case: 18-12645 Date Filed: 06/18/2019 Page: 2 of 2
|   | (1) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and |
|--------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

|   | /s/ Yi He               |   |
|--------|-------------------------|--------|
|   | Yi He                   |   |
|   | Chief Executive Officer |   |
|   |                    |   |
|   | Dated: March 28, 2011   |   |

----
#### James B. HART, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 72-975.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

April 9, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Denied.
1

NO. 03-14-00722-CR; 03-14-00723-CR; 03-14-00724-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS THIRD DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN, TEXAS MARK FRUGE § APPELLANT VS. § THE STATE OF TEXAS § APPELLEE

APPEAL FROM THE 331 ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS CAUSE NO. D1-DC-13-200256, D1-DC-13-200257, AND D1-DC-13-200259 STATE'S FIRST MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS: The State of Texas respectfully moves for an extension of the deadline for filing the State’s brief and, in accordance with Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 38.6 and 10.5(b), advises the Court as follows: (a) Following his convictions for Aggravated Assault with a Deadly Weapon; Aggravated Assault Against a Public Servant; and Aggravated Robbery with a Deadly ACCEPTED 03-14-00724-CR 6845577 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS 9/9/2015 1:01:26 PM JEFFREY D. KYLE

CLERK2

Weapon, the appellant filed his notice of appeal in the above causes on November 3, 2014. Appellant’s counsel filed a brief on August 10, 2015. (c) The State’s brief is currently due on September 9, 2015

. (c) This request is that the deadline for filing the State’s brief be extended by 30 days

. (d) The number of previous extensions of time granted for submission of the State’s brief is: none. (e) The State relies upon the following facts to reasonably explain the need for an extension of the deadline: 1. During the period since this brief was filed, the attorney assigned to this case has been working on other pressing appellate matters and has not had sufficient time to prepare an adequate response to this brief. 2. This request is not made for the purpose of delay, but to ensure that the Court has a proper State’s brief to aid in the just disposition of the above cause.3

WHEREFORE, the State of Texas respectfully requests that the deadline for filing the State’s brief be extended to October 9, 2015. Respectfully submitted, ROSEMARY LEHMBERG District Attorney Travis County, Texas /s/ Matthew Foye Matthew Foye Assistant District Attorney State Bar No. 24043661 P.O. Box 1748 Austin, Texas 78767 (512) 854-9400 Fax No. 854-4810 Matthew.Foye@traviscountytx.gov AppellateTCDA@traviscountytx.gov4 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.4(i), I hereby certify, based upon the computer program used to generate this motion, that this motion contains 244 words, excluding words contained in those parts of the motion that Rule 9.4(i) exempts from inclusion in the word count. I certify, further, that this motion is printed in a conventional, 14-point typeface. /s/ Matthew Foye Matthew Foye Assistant District Attorney

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that, on the 9th day of September, 2015, a true and correct copy of this motion was served, by U.S. mail, electronic mail, facsimile, or electronically through the electronic filing manager, to the Appellant’s attorney, Ariel Payan, Attorney at Law, 1012 Rio Grande, Austin, Texas 78701, arielpayan@hotmail.com

. /s/ Matthew Foye Matthew Foye Assistant District Attorney
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AND BALANCE SHEETS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                           3,564
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    6,213
<ALLOWANCES>                                       335
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                10,760
<PP&E>                                          13,605
<DEPRECIATION>                                   6,224
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  20,669
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           14,063
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        45,727
<OTHER-SE>                                    (43,872)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    20,669
<SALES>                                         23,233
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                23,233
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    9,739
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                32,719
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (640)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (19,917)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        18
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (19,935)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (19,935)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (2.16)<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (2.16)
<FN>
<F1>For Purposes Of This Exhibit, Primary Means Basic.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
Page 1 of 3

Disposition Comments

Docket No: FAA-2012-0501 These comments are in

Directorate ID: 2009-SW-083-AD response to an SNPRM

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

Next Step: FRAN SNPRM

 No Comments/Only Supportive Comments Received – If this box is checked, no signatures are 

required.

No Has the referenced service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? If yes, 

list latest revision and attach a copy. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously 

published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance.

Instructions: Summarize all comments by issue (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of 

each issue. All comments relating to the same issue should be discussed together. Do not list all of the issues 

from one commenter together. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and 

describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA-IR-M-8040.1C Chapter 9.

ISSUE 1: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD: 

If NO, we don’t agree because 

ISSUE 2: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD:
Page 2 of 3

If NO, we don’t agree because 

For additional issues, double-click here
Page 3 of 3

Signature Section

Signature indicates concurrence with this action.

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

ASE Printed Name: Date

Branch Manager Date
#### MIDLAND NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. v. FERGUSON.

No. 37842.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Feb. 1969.

Rehearing Denied March 25, 1969.

Certiorari denied without opinion.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-7283
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus TERVEUS HYPPOLITE, Defendant - Appellant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (CR-93-40, CA-97-74-4-H) Submitted: January 27, 1998 Decided: February 18, 1998 Before WIDENER, HALL, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Terveus Hyppolite, Appellant Pro Se. Captain Benjamin Clarke Hall, OFFICE OF THE STAFF JUDGE ADVOCATE, Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal substantially on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Hyppolite , Nos. CR-93-40; CA-97-74-4-H (E.D.N.C. July 25, 1997). To the extent Appellant claims ineffective assistance of counsel because trial counsel failed to adequately argue Appellant's Fourth Amendment issue and failed to adequately impeach a Government witness, we find that Appellant failed to establish that his attorney's performance fell below an objective standard of reasonably competent assistance. See Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984). We find Appellant's claim that the district court failed to compel a response from the Government meritless because Appellant failed to establish how this prejudiced him. We dispense with oral argument because thefacts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 7954 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

<DOC>
116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 7954

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           November 30, 2020

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To reauthorize the Tropical Forest and Coral Reef Conservation Act of 
                                 1998.

    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 ``Tropical Forest and Coral Reef 
Conservation Reauthorization Act of 2020''.

SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION.

    Section 806(d) of the Tropical Forest and Coral Reef Conservation 
Act of 1998 (22 U.S.C. 2431d(d)) is amended by adding at the end the 
following new paragraphs:
            ``(9) $20,000,000 for fiscal year 2021.
            ``(10) $20,000,000 for fiscal year 2022.
            ``(11) $20,000,000 for fiscal year 2023.
            ``(12) $20,000,000 for fiscal year 2024.
            ``(13) $20,000,000 for fiscal year 2025.''.

            Passed the House of Representatives November 18, 2020.

            Attest:

                                             CHERYL L. JOHNSON,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 232 (Tuesday, December 3, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 72746-72747]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-28878]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

Application of Corporate Flight Management, Inc., for Commuter 
Authority

AGENCY: Department of Transportation.

[[Page 72747]]

ACTION: Notice of Order to Show Cause (Order 2013-11-21); Docket DOT-
OST-2013-0061.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Transportation is directing all interested 
persons to show cause why it should not issue an order finding 
Corporate Flight Management, Inc., fit, willing, and able, and awarding 
it Commuter Air Carrier Authorization.

DATES: Persons wishing to file objections should do so no later than 
December 17, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Objections and answers to objections should be filed in 
Docket DOT-OST-2013-0061 and addressed to U.S. Department of 
Transportation, Docket Operations, (M-30, Room W12-140), 1200 New 
Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590, 
and should be served upon the parties listed in Attachment A to the 
order.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lauralyn Remo, Air Carrier Fitness 
Division (X-56), U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey 
Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, (202) 366-9721.

    Dated: November 25, 2013.
Susan L. Kurland,
Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs.
[FR Doc. 2013-28878 Filed 12-2-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P
```
#### TOWN OF BAY HARBOR ISLAND, etc., et al., Appellants, v. LANCELOT ASSOCIATES, Appellee.

No. 70-492.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Jan. 26, 1971.

*438Thomas. C. Britton, County Atty., and Gary S. Brooks, Asst. County Atty., Broad & Cassel, Miami Beach, for appellants.

Pallot, Silver, Pallot, Stern, Proby & Adkins, Miami, for appellee.

Before BARKDULL, HENDRY and SWANN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

This appeal is from a final judgment rendered against the taxing authorities in an ad valorem tax case.

We reverse. The tax assessor is required to consider all the criteria set forth in § 193.011, Fla.Stat., F.S.A. (formerly § 193.021, Fla.Stat.) in arriving at an assessment of real property. Metropolitan Dade County v. Tropical Park, Fla.App.1970, 231 So.2d 243.

The record on appeal shows that he considered the income from this highrise apartment in arriving at its assessment. He rejected the income method as a proper basis for making this assessment because of an insufficient period of time to indicate the income derived from the high rise and it would have been necessary to use prospective income in order to utilize the income method. Such action was proper on the part of the assessor. See Bal Harbour Club, Inc. v. Dade County, Fla.App.1969, 222 So.2d 428; Williams v. Simpson, Fla. App. 1968, 209 So.2d 262; and § 193.011, Fla.Stat., F.S.A.

Having determined that this assessment of Dade County Tax Assessor was based on a consideration of all the criteria in § 193.011, Fla.Stat., F.S.A., and that it was a valid assessment, we will not consider appellant’s other point for reversal.

The final judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded with instructions to enter a final judgment for the appellant taxing authorities.

It is so ordered.
#### W. Nelson RIVERS, Appellant, v. ROOD AND HAPNER, Appellees.

No. 71-932.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Sept. 29, 1972.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-60899 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus RICKY BERNARD HARDIN, also known as Nard, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 3:97-CR-133-1-S

-------------------- June 18, 2002 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Ricky Bernard Hardin, federal prisoner # 10719-042, appeals from the district court's denial of his motion to modify sentencepursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Hardin, who received a twolevel sentence enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(c) as an organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor of criminal activity, argues that Amendment 500 to the sentencing guidelines clarifiedNo. 01-60899 -2- the law concerning such enhancements and should be applied "retroactively" to reduce his sentence. Amendment 500 took effect on November 1, 1993, prior to Hardin's sentencing in 1998. See U.S.S.G., App. C, Amendment 500. Accordingly, Hardin's 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion is not based on a sentencing range that has "subsequently" been lowered by the Sentencing Commission. See United States v. Alvarez , 210 F.3d 309, 310 (5th Cir. 2000).
AFFIRMED.