alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Attendees at EPA’s January 23, 2014 Public Hearing on the 2015

- 2019 Proposed HCFC Allocation Rule In addition to the names below, EPA staff were also in attend a nce

**Name Affiliation**  Charlie McCrudden Air Conditioning Contractors of America (ACCA) Christine Hazelbaker Air Conditioning Contractors of America (ACCA) Jim Scott AGC Chemicals Emmanuel Dupree Airgas Jay Kestenbaum Airgas Kevin Faye Alliance for Responsible Atmospheric Policy Stephen Van Maren Alliance for Responsible Atmospheric Policy Bill Anaya Alston & Bird LLP Bob Kamins Altair Matthew Ritter Arkema David Kunz Arkema Jessica Olson Ay res Law Group Ken Ponder Choice Refrigerants Don Magid Combs Investment Properties Ralph Werling Daikin America/MDA Manufacturing Julian DeBullet deBullet Consulting, LLC

Pete Mullenhard DoD ODS Subcommittee of the Clean Air Act Services Steering Committee Mack MacFarland DuPont Michael Parr DuPont James Bachman DuPont Alexander von Bismarck Environmental Investigation Agency Danielle Gagne, HFC & Climate Policy Anal ys t Environmental Investigation Agency Marcus Lee, HFC & Climate Policy Analy st Environmental Investigation Agency James Wolf Global Policy Associates Rusty Tharp Goodman Manufacturing Dave Ransom Goodman Manufacturing

Jon Melchi Heating Air

- conditioning & Refrigeration Distributors International (HARDI) Molly Kell y
- Yahner Heather Podesta + Partners Ben Klein Heather Podesta + Partners Dave Stirpe Honey well Stephen P. Mandracchia Hudson Technologies Jim Tieken ICOR International Nanette Lockwood In gersoll Rand Steve Porter Johnstone Supply Kathry n Biszko Keller and Heckman LLP Peter Williams New Era Group, Inc.Linda Woolridge New Era Group, Inc.

Jill Tronca North Lakes Distributing Ben Longstreth Natural Resources Defense Council W. Caffey

Norman Patton Boggs LLP Kristina Foehrkolb Patton Boggs LLP Jerry Dy kstra Rapid Recovery Brian Conners Safe Disposal Sy stems, Inc. James Burke USA Refrigerants David Silverman Senator Murphy's Office

Karim Amrane Air

- conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute (AHRI) Dennis Tronca North Lakes Distributing Ken Gaglione Honey well
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
consolidated statements of income for the twelve months ended December 31, 1999
and the consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 1999 and is qualified in
its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                      17,912,797
<SECURITIES>                                   250,790
<RECEIVABLES>                               30,221,995
<ALLOWANCES>                               (3,388,719)
<INVENTORY>                                    109,453
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            55,318,329
<PP&E>                                      24,943,708
<DEPRECIATION>                            (11,360,237)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              88,175,039
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       20,666,307
<BONDS>                                        224,285
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       196,742
<OTHER-SE>                                  67,087,705
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                88,175,039
<SALES>                                     39,267,761
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           118,776,078
<CGS>                                        2,319,732
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               46,545,400
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            61,844,658
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             2,139,482
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             182,323
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             11,847,365
<INCOME-TAX>                                 4,412,219
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          7,435,146
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 7,435,146
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.39
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.37


</TABLE>
*

 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. This court

generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order

and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

** After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this three-judge

panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not be of material

assistance in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th

Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

F I L E D

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

AUG 29 2003

PATRICK FISHER

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

STEVEN KENT BLOOM,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

CHARLES E. SIMMONS, Secretary

of Corrections; KANSAS

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

Defendants - Appellees.

No. 03-3014

(D.C. No. 02-CV-3300-GTV)

(D. Kansas)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before KELLY, BRISCOE, and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.**

Mr. Bloom, an inmate appearing pro se, appeals from the district court’s

dismissal of his civil rights complaint alleging error in the recording of his state

sentence. The district court determined that these defendants were named in a

prior complaint containing the same claims by Mr. Bloom. The prior complaint
- 2 -

was dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The district court held that this

action was barred by claim preclusion. Claim preclusion applies where there is

(1) a final merits judgment in the prior action, (2) identity of parties or privies in

both actions, and (3) identity of causes of action in both suits. See Wilkes v.

Wyo. Dep’t of Employment Div. of Labor Stds., 314 F.3d 501, 504 (10th Cir.

2002). Applying the transactional approach to what constitutes a cause of action,

it is clear that Mr. Bloom’s sentencing claim is identical, and other elements of

claim preclusion are satisifed in this case. See id. We note that the district

court’s dismissal of the prior complaint was recently affirmed. See Bloom v.

Andrews, No. 02-3366, 2003 WL 21480696, at *2 (10th Cir. June 27, 2003).

AFFIRMED.

Entered for the Court

Paul J. Kelly, Jr.

Circuit Judge
Exhibit 3







CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)







In connection with the Annual Report of Pacific Harbour Capital Ltd., a British Columbia company, (the "Company"), on Form 20-F for the year ended March 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities & Exchange Commission (the "Report"), Thomas Pressello, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer and Lisa Reynolds, Chairman of the Board of the Company, respectively do each hereby certify, pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.c. § 1350), that to their knowledge:



(1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



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







"Thomas Pressello"





Thomas Pressello

Chief Executive Officer

October 27, 2004







"Lisa Reynolds"





Lisa Reynolds

Chairman of the Board

October 27, 2004
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-19-00302-CV

Gene Fogle, Individually and d/b/a AAA Allstor #2, Appellant

v.

Kevin Wiley, Appellee

FROM THE 146TH DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY

NO. 297,006-B, THE HONORABLE JACK WELDON JONES, JUDGE PRESIDING

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

Appellant Gene Fogle, Individually and d/b/a AAA Allstor #2, filed an unopposed 

motion to dismiss this appeal. We grant Appellant’s motion and dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. 

App. P. 42.1(a).

__________________________________________

Gisela D. Triana, Justice

Before Justices Goodwin, Baker, and Triana

Dismissed on Appellant’s Motion

Filed: June 12, 2019
`[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 843 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.843
                       One Hundred Third Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America


                          AT THE FIRST SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
  the fifth day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-three


                                 An Act


 
 To withdraw certain lands located in the Coronado National Forest from 
the mining and mineral leasing laws of the United States, and for other 
                                purposes.

    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 ``Cave Creek Canyon Protection Act of 
1993''.
SEC. 2. WITHDRAWAL OF LANDS WITHIN CAVE CREEK CANYON DRAINAGE.
    (a) Withdrawal.--Subject to valid existing rights, after the date of 
enactment of this Act lands within the Cave Creek Canyon Drainage are 
withdrawn from entry, location, or patent under the general mining laws, 
the operation of the mineral and geothermal leasing laws and the mineral 
material disposal laws.
    (b) Definition.--For the purposes of this Act, the term ``Cave Creek 
Canyon Drainage'' means lands and interest in lands owned by the United 
States within the area depicted on the map of record entitled ``Cave 
Creek Mineral Withdrawal'', dated November 1, 1991. The map shall be on 
file and available for public inspection in the offices of the Forest 
Service, Department of Agriculture.







                                Speaker of the House of Representatives.







                             Vice President of the United States and    
                                                President of the Senate.`
#### J. Ed STRAUGHN, Executive Director, Department of Revenue of the State of Florida, Appellant, v. PRESBYTERIAN HOMES OF the SYNOD OF FLORIDA, a Florida corporation not for profit, Appellee.

No. 73-1358.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Dec. 19, 1973.

Motion to Transfer to the Supreme Court of Florida is hereby granted.
NO. 05-14-01415-CV

IN THE FIFTH COURT OF APPEALS DALLAS, TEXAS

SOUTHAMPTON LTD. and SOUTHW EST REINSURANCE, INC.

Appellants,

vs.

FOUR HORSEMEN AUTO GROUP, INC., CHISHOLM TRAIL AUTO GROUP, LLC, CHISHOLM TRAI L AUTO GROUP II, LLC, CHISHOLM TRAIL REAL ESTATE, LLC

Appellees.

ON APPEAL FROM THE 101st DISTRICT COURT

OF DALLAS COUNTY, TE XAS, NO. DC-13-13331

APPELLANT’S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME IN WHICH TO FILE REPLY IN SUPPORT OF APPEAL

Werner A. Powers State Bar No. 16218800 Natalie DuBose State Bar No. 24077481 H AYNES AND B OONE , LLP 2323 Victory Avenue, Suite 700 Dallas, Texas 75219 214-651-5000 214-651-5940 (facsimile)

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANTS ACCEPTED 05-14-01415-CV FIFTH COURT OF APPEALS

DALLAS, TEXAS 2/26/2015 3:27:42 PM

LISA MATZ CLERK2 To the Honorable Fifth Court of Appeals:

Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 10.5(b), Appellants file

this Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time in Which to File a Reply in

Support of their Appeal and hereby re quest the Court extend the deadline by

which to file a reply in support of thei r appeal by two (2) weeks, or until March

17, 2015. In support of their Motion, Appellants would show the Court the

following:

1. Appellants’ Reply is currently due on Tuesday, March 3, 2015.

2. No previous motions for extensions have been made.

3. Appellants seek an extension so that it may adequately address

Appellees’ evidentiary and substantiv e arguments, the response to which

requires detailed research a nd briefing. Counsel is in the process of preparing

the Reply, but in the interest of completing it correctly and thoroughly,

Appellants seek an additional tw o seeks in which to respond.

4. Appellees have no objecti on to this extension.

IV. P RAYER

For these reasons, Appellants respectfu lly request that the Court extend

the deadline by which Appellants must file their reply in support of their appeal

for two (2) weeks, or until March 17, 2015.3 Respectfully submitted,

HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP

/s/ Werner A. Powers Werner A. Powers State Bar No. 16218800 Natalie DuBose State Bar No. 24077481 2323 Victory Avenue, Suite 700 Dallas, Texas 75219 Telephone: (214) 651-5000 Telecopier: (214) 651-5940 werner.powers@haynesboone.com natalie.dubose@haynesboone.com

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANTS SOUTHAMPTON, LTD. AND SOUTHWEST REINSU RANCE, INC.4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing instrument has been sent to all counsel of record to the appeal in accordance with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure on this 26th day of February, 2015.

James J. Doyle III The Doyle Law Firm 4054 McKinney Ave., Suite 310 Dallas, Texas 75204 james@doylelawonline.com

Additionally, a courtesy copy ha s been provided to the following attorneys:

Mark A. Shank Leonard (Ladd) A. Hirsch Gruber Hurst Johansen Hail Sh ank James D. Sheppard 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 2500 Diamond McCarthy, LLP Dallas, Texas 75202-2711 1201 Elm Street Suit, 3400 mshank@ghjhlaw.com Dallas, Texas 75209 LHirsch@diamondmccarthy.com

/s/ Natalie DuBose Natalie DuBose

15048542_1
|   | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section a 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|--------|-----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

| Date  February 22, 2011 | /s/ James R. Harlan                                   |
|-----------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------|
|                              | James R. Harlan                                       |
|                              | Chief Financial Officer (Principal financial officer) |
* 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. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED November 9, 2005 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-50526 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus ALEJANDRO RAMIREZ-NAVARRO, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:04-CR-2621-ALL

-------------------- Before REAVLEY, GARZA, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Alejandro Ramirez-Navarro raises arguments that are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that a prior conviction is a sentencing factor under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) and not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
#### BURNSIDE *v.*TROBAUGH.

Judgment — -Res Judicata.

In aetion by purchasers of confectionery business against vendors and their agents for fraud in the sale, judgment *non obstante veredicto*in favor of said agents, from which no appeal was taken, is *res judicata*in subsequent aetion against them based on samé fraud.

Appeal from Wayne; Campbell (Allan), J.

Submitted January 12, 1932.

(Docket No. 114, Calendar No. 36,173.)

Decided June 23, 1932.

Rehearing denied September 14, 1932.

Case by Lot Burnside and another against Elbert L. -Trobaugh and others for fraud in the sale of a confectionery business. Judgment for defendants. Plaintiffs appeal.

Affirmed.

*Hugh K. Davidson,*for plaintiffs.

North, J.

Plaintiffs purchased a confectionery business, including fixtures and store in the city of Detroit, paying therefor $1,000 in cash and giving their notes secured by a mortgage back on the property for $1,800. After the purchase plaintiffs discovered they had been defrauded. They tendered back, to the vendors the purchased property and the latter accepted the tender. Plaintiffs then brought suit against the two vendors and against four other persons who acted as agents in consummating the sale to plaintiffs. This was a tort action based upon the fraud 'perpetrated, and plaintiffs- had judgment against all of the defendants; but upon motion for judgment notwithstanding verdict, the circuit judge before whom the case was tried granted the motion *360as to the four defendants who had acted as agents in consummating the sale. At that time plaintiffs were allowed to amend their declaration, and on the theory of rescission took judgment in assumpsit against the two vendors. No part of this judgment has been satisfied.

Later plaintiffs instituted the suit at bar against the four parties who acted as agents. Service was obtained upon only three of them. In this suit plaintiffs claim damages for the fraud of the agents which induced plaintiffs to purchase the store and Confectionery business. While the record before us on this appeal is' by no means clear or satisfactory, it seems that the three defendants by special notice under their plea raise the question of former adjudication, and also urge that since plaintiffs waived the tort committed by the vendors in this sale and took judgment in assumpsit they (plaintiffs) cannot now take an inconsistent position and recover in the instant case against these defendants on the ground of the same fraud that was waived in the former suit. The trial judge sustained defendants’ contention and dismissed plaintiffs’ suit. Plaintiffs have appealed.

The ruling of the trial judge was correct on the ground of *res judicata.*In the former tort action involving the same issue between these same parties plaintiffs had verdict. When, in that former suit, the circuit judge ordered judgment *non obstante,*there was final adjudication adverse to plaintiffs. They did not appeal, and so are bound thereby. Our judgment is for affirmance; but since appellees have taken no part in this appeal, no costs will be awarded in this court.

Clark, C. J., and McDonald, Potter, Sharpe, Fead, Wiest, and Butzel, JJ., concurred.
EXHIBIT 32.01



             CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO SECTION 1350
       OF CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE



In connection with the Quarterly Report of General Employment
Enterprises, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter
ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the "Report"), each of the undersigned hereby
certifies, in his capacity as an officer of the Company, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:

  (1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of section
       13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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



Date:  February 5, 2004                    By:  /s/ Herbert F. Imhoff, Jr.
                                           Herbert F. Imhoff, Jr.
                                           Chairman of the Board, Chief
                                           Executive Officer and President
                                           (Chief executive officer)


Date:  February 5, 2004                    By:  /s/ Kent M. Yauch
                                           Kent M. Yauch
                                           Vice President, Chief Financial
                                           Officer and Treasurer
                                           (Chief financial officer)
UNITED STATESSECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSIONWashington D.C. 20549FORM 10-QQUARTERLY REPORT UNDER SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OFTHE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934For the Quarterly Period Ended September 30, 2001

Commission File Number 0-2604**GENERAL BINDING CORPORATION**(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)**36-0887470**(I.R.S. employer identification No.)**Delaware(State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization)**One GBC Plaza,Northbrook, Illinois  60062**(Address of principal executive offices, including zip code)**(847)  272-3700**(Registrant's telephone number, including area code)

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.

Yes   X   No        

Indicate the number of shares outstanding of each of the issuer's classes of common stock, as of the close of the latest practicable date.

 
 **Outstanding at**Class**October 31, 2001
Common Stock, $.125 par value
13,397,082
Class B Common Stock, $.125 par value
2,398,275**GENERAL BINDING CORPORATION AND**SUBSIDIARIESFORM 10-QFor the Quarter Ended September 30, 2001Table of Contents**    **PART I.**Financial Information 
Page    
Item 1.
Financial statements (unaudited)       
Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets as ofSeptember 30, 2001 and December 31,2000 **************